Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

How old should a child be...

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
72 replies to this topic
Chris Fromage
  • Chris Fromage

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2012
  • Japan

#31

Posted 06 February 2013 - 04:17 PM

16 is good if you ask me.
18 is an age were you "become" an adult and have more work. Some will go to university and others will search for a work. You won't have much time to play then.
16 is an age were you know the difference between real-life and a game, know what can be done and what can not be done and you still got much free time to play.

Lazyboy.
  • Lazyboy.

    could you PLEASE stop using that f*cking blue font?!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#32

Posted 06 February 2013 - 06:34 PM

My parents bought me GTA LCS (it was my first GTA) in 2005, so I was around 6 years old. I played it a sh*tload and they knew I enjoyed it. They knew about killing prostitutes, all the death and guns and violence, but they watched me play for the first few times, all I did was drive around, stealing cars and knocking things over. That's all I cared about as a kid. They trusted me with the game, and they bought me all the other GTA games.

When I first played IV, there was a slightly awkward situation for them, I was playing and I got to this mission where I had to shoot a porn actor.

My dad was on the setee behind me so I asked "what's a porn actor and where is it?", my little child mind assumed it was some sort of bone in the leg so I idiotically blurted "IS IT A BONE?" and my dad was all "just shoot him" because he wanted to avoid the awkward explanations.

Anyways, people who only let kids play GTA until 18 are just really really annoying. They don't understand the way things like that work. Kids should be allowed to play GTA at any age, so long as they're not a violent little sh*t at a young age, because then GTA would give them ideas and only make things worse.

It's all about the child, really.

Dale Nixon
  • Dale Nixon

    methane on my mind

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#33

Posted 06 February 2013 - 06:57 PM Edited by sivispacem, 06 February 2013 - 07:11 PM.

Old enough to shoot up his school.

- You are the third person I've warned today. Read the damn rules before you post in D&D. This isn't the V forum, don't post unless you're going to post something worthwhile. You've been here long enough to know better -

UncleD
  • UncleD

    Don't worry guys, soon the wait will be all Ogre

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

#34

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:33 AM

I've been playing since I was 4 and all my mates were as well around that age. I didn't turn out well but the other 99 did. IMO opinion video-game shouldn't have an age restriction. Maybe besides some games with actual sex like God of War?

El Zilcho
  • El Zilcho

    Virtuoso

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 14 May 2008
  • European-Union

#35

Posted 20 February 2013 - 03:42 PM

As a child, I was allowed to watch older films (15s and 18s) at about age 8 or 9, with only the most brutal or sexual films kept from me. In my fathers view, this was done so I wasn't 'bubble wrapped' from reality - in a way, my upbringing overall involved treating me not as a baby, but more as an adult; I learned bigger words, watched documentaries and films at a younger age. Even if my understanding at that time was under par, it helped to develop my mind and world outlook early on. Not only do I think this method is beneficial to the holistic development of children (I've always thought school was too slow in some respects), but it is also non-patronising.

Children the world over deal with horrific situations day in and day out. They are frequently capable of intelligence, understanding and comprehension way beyond their years, if only given the chance to build on those traits. Showing them some of the real world, in a controlled environment, is a useful way to teach them. Allowing them to play a game, which children can easily be taught is pure fiction, is even more harmless. As long as the other duties of parental education and teaching are fulfilled, I fully believe an 18 game will do as much to morally degrade your children as playing with toy guns - nothing.

GoldenBlade
  • GoldenBlade

    Hustlin'

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2012

#36

Posted 16 March 2013 - 01:13 AM

Let's all tell the truth. Nobody pays attention to ESRB ratings. 18+ years old my ass tounge.gif

Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • Scotland
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#37

Posted 16 March 2013 - 02:02 AM Edited by Lightning Strike, 16 March 2013 - 12:57 PM.

QUOTE (DropThaSystem @ Saturday, Mar 16 2013, 01:13)
Let's all tell the truth. Nobody pays attention to ESRB ratings. 18+ years old my ass tounge.gif

While that may be true for some, I think you're stretching it a little bit when you say that no-one cares about the ESRB/PEGI ratings. When I was younger (I'm talking around about the age of nine or ten) I had a number of friends that honestly weren't allowed to play videogames that had an ESRB rating over twelve.

The whole reason for this is that their parents believed that videogames could have adverse effects on a child's mind or some other bullcrap like that and thought that for some reason or another I was going to end up as a very messed up individual due to my mother not caring about the age rating on the box, in her mind it worked like this:

Can my child differentiate between fantasy and reality ? Yes, then he or she should be able to play whatever videogame they want to, regardless of the damn age rating. You see it's my personal opinion that videogames don't do anything to a person psychologically, or rather they don't do anything psychologically damaging to said person, the only thing that it's possible for them to do is desensitize us to virtual violence, does that mean that we're no longer affected when we see real violence ? Of course not.

For some reason or another a number of people seem to think that by playing videogames that are quite graphic, violent or explicit in nature can have adverse effects on the person playing them, the only way that I can see that happening is if there's something already wrong with the person in the first place.

That's not to say that videogames don't impact people or have an affect on them, what it means is that I highly doubt videogames are the cause of any person going completely insane because there's simply not enough evidence to support it, and in most cases it's later found that the person who went absolutely crazy after playing a videogame already had a lot of underlying issues that they weren't dealing with correctly leading to the breakdown.

Simply put people do pay attention to the ESRB ratings (as much as I personally disagree with the things) but for all the wrong reasons, misinformation is never a good thing, neither is fear and that's not really what you want to feel when you're purchasing a videogame for yourself or someone else. Some people have been brainwashed by the media to think that videogames are the devil, when in actuality it seems that videogames are just the 'new' Rock and Roll.

GoldenBlade
  • GoldenBlade

    Hustlin'

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2012

#38

Posted 16 March 2013 - 02:13 AM

You certainly have a point. Usually it's the things that people don't know about that drive a person to go insane. Lots of things could be going on in a person's life to make them do crazy things.

ZDANZ96
  • ZDANZ96

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2011

#39

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:09 PM

Each kid is different, everybody has a different level of maturity, even in the same age.


John The Grudge
  • John The Grudge

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2009

#40

Posted 18 March 2013 - 08:47 AM Edited by John The Grudge, 18 March 2013 - 08:50 AM.

The people who give ratings to games and films know what they're doing. If GTA says 18 on the box then chances are that's about the youngest appropriate age somebody should be playing that game. Of course some parents might not agree or care. GTA games for example aren't given an 18 rating by default. Somebody has spent a lot of time with the game in order to come to that conclusion.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#41

Posted 18 March 2013 - 07:05 PM

QUOTE (John The Grudge @ Monday, Mar 18 2013, 09:47)
The people who give ratings to games and films know what they're doing. If GTA says 18 on the box then chances are that's about the youngest appropriate age somebody should be playing that game. Of course some parents might not agree or care. GTA games for example aren't given an 18 rating by default. Somebody has spent a lot of time with the game in order to come to that conclusion.

I disagree. One only needs to look at how much the idea of "age appropriateness" varies from production to production. An 18 rated film produced in the 1960s would barely muster a 12A rating these days, for instance. Plus there are certain aspects that seem to offend more than others. Sex and nudity pretty much guarantee an 18-rating for a game, but you can full-on disembowel people in 15, for example. Which always seemed a bit perverse to me as I would argue that sex is far less offensive than turning people into paste.

Moth
  • Moth

    Canis Canem Edit

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2006
  • Canada

#42

Posted 19 March 2013 - 11:15 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Mar 18 2013, 14:05)
Which always seemed a bit perverse to me as I would argue that sex is far less offensive than turning people into paste.

Yes, but which one is kid more likely to do? Disembowel someone or have sex? I think that is the main reason for the way things are. All comes down to which one is more likely to do. And I wouldn't be surprised that some people thin any sex=porn, thus it needs the 18 rating.

ElPaisa
  • ElPaisa

    GFX Artist

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011
  • Mexico

#43

Posted 25 March 2013 - 01:01 PM

I started playing San Andreas when I was 9!

Kalvin
  • Kalvin

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#44

Posted 25 March 2013 - 01:30 PM Edited by sivispacem, 25 March 2013 - 06:36 PM.

I played Vice City on my PS2 when I was 4 ph34r.gif

-Please keep posts within acceptable guidelines for D&D. You've been here long enough to know better-

Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • Scotland
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#45

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:36 PM Edited by Lightning Strike, 28 March 2013 - 11:00 PM.

QUOTE (The General @ Tuesday, Mar 19 2013, 11:15)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Mar 18 2013, 14:05)
Which always seemed a bit perverse to me as I would argue that sex is far less offensive than turning people into paste.

Yes, but which one is kid more likely to do? Disembowel someone or have sex? I think that is the main reason for the way things are.


How on earth is having sex worse then disemboweling someone ? I'm sorry but one is part of a species' reproductive cycle, a cycle that is necessary for the survival of said species and the other's some sort of horrid technique for killing someone. If you're going to make that excuse then you might as well say that films that involve scenes where children eat sweeties should be eighteen rated, since it's something that's bad for them and it's something that they are very likely to do.

QUOTE (The General @ Tuesday, Mar 19 2013, 11:15)
All comes down to which one is more likely to do. And I wouldn't be surprised that some people thin any sex=porn, thus it needs the 18 rating.


As I've already stated, no it doesn't matter which act the child or person viewing's more likely to do. What matters, or should I say what should matter is just how bad of an act they're showing on the screen at the time. People need to stop viewing children and teens as beings that simply can't understand sex and violence since they're clearly capable of it.

The fact remains that even if you label a film/videogame with an eighteen rating because it has a pair of breasts in it then you're stupid, any fourteen year-old with access to the internet's seen far, far worse. The age ratings system we've got at the moment's just not good enough for my liking, until it either becomes a suggested age rating then it's a seriously flawed system. I mean come on, you're seriously going to sit there with a straight face and act like any teenage boy who's got a phone or computer hasn't seen worse on the internet.

Face it, kids know what they're doing and it's about damn time the rating systems changed because of that fact, they're subjected to far worse on the news then they are in videogames or movies. The issue with the ratings system, and I suppose all ratings systems is the fact that unfortunately, they're based on the idea that age equals maturity and that's far from the case.

GTAKid667
  • GTAKid667

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 24 May 2010
  • United-Kingdom
  • Most Helpful [GTA] 2013
    Contribution Award [GTA III]

#46

Posted 04 April 2013 - 09:16 AM

Well it does say 18 on the box and that is only a guide, I have been playing GTA for a good 6-8 years and i'm not even 18 yet biggrin.gif . I suppose that for a parent it is more about thinking whether their child is mature enough to play the game. My cousin's friend actually got the game taken off him because of his immaturity when he started to have a bit of an obsessed mind (Mainly through drawing violent images) over GTA San Andreas.

Ari Gold
  • Ari Gold

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009
  • None

#47

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:10 AM

QUOTE (GTAKid667 @ Thursday, Apr 4 2013, 20:16)
Well it does say 18 on the box and that is only a guide,

It's not merely a guide, though. If a game is rated as 18+, then you must be at least 18-years-old to purchase it, with ID proving your age supplementing the purchase. It's asinine, given that under this system, someone aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days old cannot legally purchase an 18+ game because the legal framework which set up the rating system has determined that he is not mature enough to play a game like Grand Theft Auto, yet after he goes home, has dinner, has a wank, and wakes up the next morning as an 18-year-old, he is all of a sudden capable of handling the sexual and violent themes endemic in GTA. It's silly.

Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • Scotland
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#48

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:28 AM

QUOTE (Stefche @ Friday, Apr 5 2013, 03:10)
QUOTE (GTAKid667 @ Thursday, Apr 4 2013, 20:16)
Well it does say 18 on the box and that is only a guide,

It's not merely a guide, though. If a game is rated as 18+, then you must be at least 18-years-old to purchase it, with ID proving your age supplementing the purchase. It's asinine, given that under this system, someone aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days old cannot legally purchase an 18+ game because the legal framework which set up the rating system has determined that he is not mature enough to play a game like Grand Theft Auto, yet after he goes home, has dinner, has a wank, and wakes up the next morning as an 18-year-old, he is all of a sudden capable of handling the sexual and violent themes endemic in GTA. It's silly.

Of course it's stupid, the issue being is it really possible to have a more efficient age rating system. I'm not sure that just making it a suggested guideline would work as then we get thrown into a rather strange world, a world of responsibility. We've got to make sure as parents that children, our children don't play things that they won't understand.

That's not to say that I should have any say over what your child plays, nor you mine. The issue is that the moment something bad happens like shootings at Sandy Hook for example, the media has no-one to blame, can the blame the company that made the game ? No because the hundreds of thousands of others that purchased that very same game suffered no adverse effects so it clearly isn't the game's fault.

Can they instead blame the store that sold the child the game ? No since once again it was a suggested rating and as long as the person at the checkout made it clear to the person who was buying the game then the media can't really blame them for it either, this is were we get down to dark, and forbidden areas that the media never likes to cover.

Videogames for as long as I can remember have been demonised, people have been told that they've been among primary causes of mass killings and mental breakdowns. This is clearly untrue, the issue is that videogames have become the new Rock 'n Roll as it were. The only reason that they're picked on so much is because they're new and a lot of the older generations (fifties, sixties, et cetera) don't see them in the same light that we do.

They often like to blame the videogames for issues that are had but once the videogame's are cleared of any and all responsibility, then it becomes one of two things depending on the age of the people involved with said incident. It either becomes the parent's responsibility or the person's responsibility, and that's something that the media doesn't like, why ? Because it means that they no longer have a scapegoat to shove out there every single time something goes wrong.

I know that this might be slightly uninformed but from what I see and hear of American media they love, absolutely love having a scapegoat, without it it's almost like they couldn't function, they seem to like (the they I am referring to here can be one of any number of North American news channels such as Fox, NBC, et cetera) the hatred that's poured onto these games and seem hell bent to keep the controversy going for as long as humanly possible.

That's why I doubt that we'll be seeing a suggested age rating system anytime soon, so if we're throwing that out of the window what else do we have to work with ? That's the million dollar question now though isn't it, we'd need to come up with a system that was completely foolproof and I'm not sure that's even possible, if there's one thing I learnt from my experience as a kid it's that I worked so much harder for the forbidden things then I did for the given things.

ATK
  • ATK

    Drive Slow

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2005

#49

Posted 07 April 2013 - 02:03 PM

When a child develops common sense and can comprehend the difference between right and wrong, they can play a violent game like GTA.

I think its safe to assume that if GTA/violent video games were the cause of such crimes, we would see many more children/young teens committing these crimes...

GTAKid667
  • GTAKid667

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 24 May 2010
  • United-Kingdom
  • Most Helpful [GTA] 2013
    Contribution Award [GTA III]

#50

Posted 07 April 2013 - 02:26 PM

QUOTE (Lightning Strike @ Friday, Apr 5 2013, 03:28)
QUOTE (Stefche @ Friday, Apr 5 2013, 03:10)
QUOTE (GTAKid667 @ Thursday, Apr 4 2013, 20:16)
Well it does say 18 on the box and that is only a guide,

It's not merely a guide, though. If a game is rated as 18+, then you must be at least 18-years-old to purchase it, with ID proving your age supplementing the purchase. It's asinine, given that under this system, someone aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days old cannot legally purchase an 18+ game because the legal framework which set up the rating system has determined that he is not mature enough to play a game like Grand Theft Auto, yet after he goes home, has dinner, has a wank, and wakes up the next morning as an 18-year-old, he is all of a sudden capable of handling the sexual and violent themes endemic in GTA. It's silly.

Of course it's stupid, the issue being is it really possible to have a more efficient age rating system. I'm not sure that just making it a suggested guideline would work as then we get thrown into a rather strange world, a world of responsibility. We've got to make sure as parents that children, our children don't play things that they won't understand.

That's not to say that I should have any say over what your child plays, nor you mine. The issue is that the moment something bad happens like shootings at Sandy Hook for example, the media has no-one to blame, can the blame the company that made the game ? No because the hundreds of thousands of others that purchased that very same game suffered no adverse effects so it clearly isn't the game's fault.

Can they instead blame the store that sold the child the game ? No since once again it was a suggested rating and as long as the person at the checkout made it clear to the person who was buying the game then the media can't really blame them for it either, this is were we get down to dark, and forbidden areas that the media never likes to cover.

Videogames for as long as I can remember have been demonised, people have been told that they've been among primary causes of mass killings and mental breakdowns. This is clearly untrue, the issue is that videogames have become the new Rock 'n Roll as it were. The only reason that they're picked on so much is because they're new and a lot of the older generations (fifties, sixties, et cetera) don't see them in the same light that we do.

They often like to blame the videogames for issues that are had but once the videogame's are cleared of any and all responsibility, then it becomes one of two things depending on the age of the people involved with said incident. It either becomes the parent's responsibility or the person's responsibility, and that's something that the media doesn't like, why ? Because it means that they no longer have a scapegoat to shove out there every single time something goes wrong.

I know that this might be slightly uninformed but from what I see and hear of American media they love, absolutely love having a scapegoat, without it it's almost like they couldn't function, they seem to like (the they I am referring to here can be one of any number of North American news channels such as Fox, NBC, et cetera) the hatred that's poured onto these games and seem hell bent to keep the controversy going for as long as humanly possible.

That's why I doubt that we'll be seeing a suggested age rating system anytime soon, so if we're throwing that out of the window what else do we have to work with ? That's the million dollar question now though isn't it, we'd need to come up with a system that was completely foolproof and I'm not sure that's even possible, if there's one thing I learnt from my experience as a kid it's that I worked so much harder for the forbidden things then I did for the given things.

Yes I agree, they have no one to blame so they use Video Games as it's an 'easy target'

@Stegche - It is a guide. Of Course you have to be over 18 to buy the game but you don't have to be 18 to play the game. No one can stop an under eighteen year old playing the game other than their parents or carers. So in that case it is a guide.

Ari Gold
  • Ari Gold

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009
  • None

#51

Posted 08 April 2013 - 06:54 AM

QUOTE (GTAKid667 @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 00:26)
QUOTE (Lightning Strike @ Friday, Apr 5 2013, 03:28)
QUOTE (Stefche @ Friday, Apr 5 2013, 03:10)
QUOTE (GTAKid667 @ Thursday, Apr 4 2013, 20:16)
Well it does say 18 on the box and that is only a guide,

It's not merely a guide, though. If a game is rated as 18+, then you must be at least 18-years-old to purchase it, with ID proving your age supplementing the purchase. It's asinine, given that under this system, someone aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days old cannot legally purchase an 18+ game because the legal framework which set up the rating system has determined that he is not mature enough to play a game like Grand Theft Auto, yet after he goes home, has dinner, has a wank, and wakes up the next morning as an 18-year-old, he is all of a sudden capable of handling the sexual and violent themes endemic in GTA. It's silly.

Of course it's stupid, the issue being is it really possible to have a more efficient age rating system. I'm not sure that just making it a suggested guideline would work as then we get thrown into a rather strange world, a world of responsibility. We've got to make sure as parents that children, our children don't play things that they won't understand.

That's not to say that I should have any say over what your child plays, nor you mine. The issue is that the moment something bad happens like shootings at Sandy Hook for example, the media has no-one to blame, can the blame the company that made the game ? No because the hundreds of thousands of others that purchased that very same game suffered no adverse effects so it clearly isn't the game's fault.

Can they instead blame the store that sold the child the game ? No since once again it was a suggested rating and as long as the person at the checkout made it clear to the person who was buying the game then the media can't really blame them for it either, this is were we get down to dark, and forbidden areas that the media never likes to cover.

Videogames for as long as I can remember have been demonised, people have been told that they've been among primary causes of mass killings and mental breakdowns. This is clearly untrue, the issue is that videogames have become the new Rock 'n Roll as it were. The only reason that they're picked on so much is because they're new and a lot of the older generations (fifties, sixties, et cetera) don't see them in the same light that we do.

They often like to blame the videogames for issues that are had but once the videogame's are cleared of any and all responsibility, then it becomes one of two things depending on the age of the people involved with said incident. It either becomes the parent's responsibility or the person's responsibility, and that's something that the media doesn't like, why ? Because it means that they no longer have a scapegoat to shove out there every single time something goes wrong.

I know that this might be slightly uninformed but from what I see and hear of American media they love, absolutely love having a scapegoat, without it it's almost like they couldn't function, they seem to like (the they I am referring to here can be one of any number of North American news channels such as Fox, NBC, et cetera) the hatred that's poured onto these games and seem hell bent to keep the controversy going for as long as humanly possible.

That's why I doubt that we'll be seeing a suggested age rating system anytime soon, so if we're throwing that out of the window what else do we have to work with ? That's the million dollar question now though isn't it, we'd need to come up with a system that was completely foolproof and I'm not sure that's even possible, if there's one thing I learnt from my experience as a kid it's that I worked so much harder for the forbidden things then I did for the given things.

Yes I agree, they have no one to blame so they use Video Games as it's an 'easy target'

@Stegche - It is a guide. Of Course you have to be over 18 to buy the game but you don't have to be 18 to play the game. No one can stop an under eighteen year old playing the game other than their parents or carers. So in that case it is a guide.

Well, if you don't have to be 18 to play the game, why do you have to be 18 to buy the game? Seems a little redundant, no?

Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • Scotland
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#52

Posted 08 April 2013 - 05:57 PM

QUOTE (Stefche @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 06:54)
Well, if you don't have to be 18 to play the game, why do you have to be 18 to buy the game? Seems a little redundant, no?

While that may be the case he's arguing that when someone's eighteen it becomes a guideline, the whole issue is that literally everyone who's over the age of seven realises that actions do in fact have consequences, shoving their responsibility aside for a videogame seems a bit stupid to me.

Even the youngest of us understand what's good and what's bad, at least at an emotional level. For example if you take your mothers money to buy sweeties then you know deep down what you've done is wrong. We also know that committing crimes like murder is a terrible thing, it's drilled into us subconsciously so blaming a videogame for your crimes isn't going to make you any less guilty or responsible for your actions.

The fact is it makes no difference whether someone's eighteen or eight, they know not to commit crimes and they know that if they do, regardless of the excuses they make for it they will be punished for it. By now it should already be a guideline and only a guideline but it isn't, the reason it isn't is because it invites the unexpected into people's lives and they don't like that, people like being able to point their fingers at someone or something and give it the blame for the situation.

If anyone here remembers Sandy Hook the guy's brother was signed into XBOX Live at the time of the murder and he was last seen playing the videogame Mass Effect 3, people swarmed on this game from all around the internet saying it was the game that had driven him to commit the crimes that he did, later it was found out that it wasn't the murderer's account but rather his brother's, people like having a scapegoat and so to do away with them entirely isn't going to be the easiest thing to do.

People have clung to the idea that all new technology is bad or evil, even though videogames are hardly new media seeing as they're nearly fifty to sixty years old, this is dependent on what you believe is the first true videogame ever released. The fact is though dating back to humanity's earliest days we've feared the unknown, but now as videogames are becoming more and more popular it's becoming harder and harder to attempt to scapegoat them.

Soon we'll be living in a world where people can't hide from what they've done, but until then and until the ratings board gives up and realises that even now it's only seen as a guideline by many, many people things are going to remain difficult and controversial. My only hope is that gaming becomes a more digitized medium as then it'll be a lot harder for the ratings to really be enforced by anyone else other then the parents of the child who wants to buy said game.

Carbine23
  • Carbine23

    Work Hard & Say It's Easy

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2007

#53

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:30 PM

I've played since 9 and i've turned out fine. And i'm 20 now

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#54

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:51 PM

QUOTE (Carbine23 @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 16:30)
I've played since 9 and i've turned out fine. And i'm 20 now

Please ensure your posts meet the minimum standard for D&D in future.

The Imposter
  • The Imposter

    Time to go ;)

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2013

#55

Posted 15 May 2013 - 05:39 AM

I personally think 14/15 is the right age to give them some freedom and let them play what they want to unless it's like a sex game or something lol.

The first GTA i got was Vice City, I played that when i was like 10 years of age and i would like to think i have turned out fine.

People know right from wrong and I'm sure they know not to get a gun and shoot someone then nick their car then drive in an airport and fly a plane.

Anyway that's just my opinion.

Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • Scotland
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#56

Posted 29 May 2013 - 03:23 AM Edited by Lightning Strike, 29 May 2013 - 10:46 AM.

QUOTE (The Imposter @ Wednesday, May 15 2013, 05:39)
I personally think 14/15 is the right age to give them some freedom and let them play what they want to unless it's like a sex game or something lol.

Let me get one thing off of my chest here, it's the fact that sex and things of a sexual nature are not and should not be considered worse than things like murder, theft and weapon smuggling. The issue is that the general public seems to have this rather strange consensus that children do not understand sex and should not, under any circumstances be told anything about it until they reach an appropriate age. The point I'm making here is that people think that it's fine to have little Timmy playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 or what have you because it doesn't contain scenes of a sexual nature, no instead it contains scenes of extreme violence, gore and manslaughter on a mass scale, which would you rather your child be subjected to?

Then we move onto the point of the appropriate age, as you can quite clearly see from my earlier comments in this thread I strongly disagree with anything that's even remotely related to enforcing or elongating the presence of the Age Rating System. Now, don't get me wrong I too agree that you shouldn't expose everyone's children to such things without a system in place (preferably one that leaves the parent of the child in charge and no-one else) but I'd like to see it moved into an entirely admonitory role, in the sense that it would only offer the warnings of what age would be preferable for a child or teenager to play the game. The enforcement of rules based on generalisations is a very, very foolish thing; for example I could tell your child that he or she wasn't allowed to read a book because his or her mind simply isn't developed enough without even knowing your child.

The games and age rating system simply isn't effective and was really advisory in nature to begin with, it's not as if the majority of peoples that own game consoles and have children don't buy games for them that are considered too mature for their young, fragile and delicate minds to handle - bullsh*t. I personally I'd like to see the system done away with entirely and as we seem to be moving towards a market that is becoming ever more digitised it's incredibly likely that we'll either see that happen or a drastic change that simply involves the conformation of the player to begin playing with said game, similar to that of entering a website that contains material of an explicit nature; for example the Rockstar Newswire.

QUOTE (The Imposter @ Wednesday, May 15 2013, 05:39)
People know right from wrong and I'm sure they know not to get a gun and shoot someone then nick their car then drive in an airport and fly a plane.

There's a big question that arises with this point, how would they obtain the knowledge to obtain a weapon, steal an automobile, sneak into a heavily guarded airport and then pilot one of the most complex vehicles that have ever been created? More so how would they obtain this knowledge from something as simple as a videogame, where the most complex thing that the player is tasked with doing is pressing a series of buttons in order to complete an objective. This is why I simply can't understand the people that view videogames as murder simulators or really simulators of any kind, the difference between pressing the triangle button on the controller of your PlayStation and actually performing an action of such complexity in reality is gargantuan.

Now we've got past the rather obvious elephant in the room let's turn our attention towards why a videogame, a piece of media that was meant and built for the sole purpose of entertainment would turn a good, honest and knowledgeable person into a psychopathic killing machine. The very thought of someone even suggesting this is enough to incite a good amount of laughter from anyone who's got even a half functioning limbic system, but still it is viewed as a valid argument, this point (that videogames turn innocent people into mindless serial killers) has even ended up being debated in a court room and that to me is one of the most laughable things imaginable.

Regardless the basic point that there's simply not enough evidence to support the fairly idiotic theory that videogames can actually cause harm to a person's mental state is reason enough to believe that none of what you've said would be possible. In the end though the fact that you even for one second thought that playing a videogame would equip someone with even half the knowledge and experience necessary to pull off such an insane feat means that you too seem to think that there's even the slightest possibility that videogames are in fact bad for you. I know of no reason why videogames could be in anyway harmful to a physiologically sane person's mental state and I think that they could really only have an adverse affect on someone who has numerous mental disorders/issues and isn't classified as mentally sane or safe.

John The Grudge
  • John The Grudge

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2009

#57

Posted 31 May 2013 - 12:01 PM Edited by John The Grudge, 31 May 2013 - 12:33 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Mar 18 2013, 19:05)
QUOTE (John The Grudge @ Monday, Mar 18 2013, 09:47)
The people who give ratings to games and films know what they're doing.  If GTA says 18 on the box then chances are that's about the youngest appropriate age somebody should be playing that game.  Of course some parents might not agree or care.  GTA games for example aren't given an 18 rating by default.  Somebody has spent a lot of time with the game in order to come to that conclusion.

I disagree. One only needs to look at how much the idea of "age appropriateness" varies from production to production. An 18 rated film produced in the 1960s would barely muster a 12A rating these days, for instance. Plus there are certain aspects that seem to offend more than others. Sex and nudity pretty much guarantee an 18-rating for a game, but you can full-on disembowel people in 15, for example. Which always seemed a bit perverse to me as I would argue that sex is far less offensive than turning people into paste.

You could argue that violence is more offensive but perhaps sex/nudity has more impact/influence on a young person. A 15 year old can surely accept the violence in 15 rated games as just part of the game. Sex/nudity though might actually influence them, as might extremely foul language. As for the the ratings older films received versus what they'd get now, classification boards now have a much better understanding of how entertainment affects people. I imagine only a few decades ago the policies of organisations such as the BBFC were based on questionable, if any research.

I think the question of what's more offensive is different from what has more effect on the viewer. With regards to under 18s playing GTA, I'd be more concerned with the foul language and sexual references than the violence.

PerceptortheShootist
  • PerceptortheShootist

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2013

#58

Posted 27 July 2013 - 05:28 AM

I was playing it when I was 2 or 3 but the early age is when you can't process deep topics. By 7 or 8, a child can think of something more complex and is able to realize that there are consequences for making the actions of these games a reality and that it's only fictional. If they do pull of something like in the game, it's the parents' fault for not talking with them about such mortal topics. There are also plenty of children out there with horrible domestic lives and have already found out about how awful reality. It's inevitable for a kid to see how the world really works.

How ironic, my mom only started questioning these games when I was playing it as a 13 year old. That was just over a year ago. lol.gif

King Andreas
  • King Andreas

    (_)

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2013
  • None

#59

Posted 28 July 2013 - 06:01 PM Edited by King Andreas, 28 July 2013 - 06:56 PM.

Quite a number of "kid" (E-rated) games (Super Mario, Donkey Kong, Kirby) yield controversial components such as violence, gore, weapons, kidnapping, inferno, thievery, and etc, yet nobody appears to get riled up over children playing these games. Seeing as most video games yield some level of controversial content of which most people have been introduced to at a young age, what's wrong with playing GTA games too? Furthermore, you can't blame video games for your actions. Blaming video games for violence is as imbecilic as blaming porn for rape.

DarrinPA
  • DarrinPA

    Orange Grove Member

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2009
  • None

#60

Posted 31 July 2013 - 02:54 AM

The idea that a board of people can make a proper judgement for all the people, that they've never met, who may play the game is never going to be correct across the board. Some kids aren't affected by things, while others are. Even some adults can't handle certain graphic situations. I really think it's up to the parents to decide when they believe their children are mature enough to play GTA or similar games.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users