It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Banned Video Games: Why Did it Have to be MY State!?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:
Urn

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 03:36 AM
link   
MCory1...here here, and well said......you are absoluty correct.

this sort of questionable content is more easily accessable now, than ever before...children these days are GOING to see this sort of media, its pretty much a given....

there's no way around it... the younger genoration is ALWAYS more tech savvy than the previous one. the more a parent fights against it, the more a child WILL fight to see it...

parents have to realize that here in the "information age", they're gonna have to buck up and acctually TALK to their kids about sex, drugs and rock n' roll, err....violence


cause they're GOING to see it with or without parentel guidence, like it or not...




posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Hi all! i am so frekkin new at this so pls pls pls acuse me of beeing a nOOb=P
but how ever....
I've been playing GTA San Andreas and its good game very good one. I like driving around lisstening to my own tracks of music & doin some missions. I mean oki in this game it is bloodbath and some stupid meaningless a..Whooping. BUT what game doesnt contain that!? I do not think GTA is a child/youngster under 18 yeargame,caus of this violence. BUT hey! thats me!
And this HOT COFEE thing, it rox, it adds some sugar into all violence in the game. But it doesnt affect me at all, just a break to get some real cofee.)
and nor does the regulary game. I play just to have some fun and escape the real world for a few hours. "its love&game nothing more...."
If you are thinkin that GTA:San Andreas is the worst game well...
What u ppl think about the game: POSTAL 2: Apocalypse Weekend???




Urn

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 06:13 AM
link   
hehe...postal 2=GREAT GAME



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by invader_chris

Veteran state Rep. Lou Lang, an attorney, believes the Illinois General Assembly this year approved at least two proposals that are unconstitutional.

One measure, an initiative of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, is designed to prevent children from buying violent and sexually explicit video games.

Source: www.sj-r.com...


Now this is just stupid. I think that whether or not a child can play a certain video game should be up to the parent. Parents are too irresponsible these days, their children are still children, and they have to do what they're told until they are adults, which includes the types of games they play, shows they watch, ect.


You know whats really silly is that we have killing and violence alll over tv and video games. And the general masses dont care, but as soon as there is sex involved, everyone goes INSANE. Id rather have a bunch of 10 year old kids show up in the news because they tied down some adult and had their way with them, instead of hearing about how some 10 year olds are being given life in prison for murdering someone, because they saw it on tv.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   
At the end of the day there's no way to stop people playing the games.

It's a fact of life that some parents are irresponsible...

Some swear in their children's faces...

Others buy them junk food instead of making proper dinners...

Others deny their kids the right to drink alcohol in their home, which means they stand around street corners shoving buckie and aftershock down their throats and annoying people...

But there's no way of controlling which 'adults' buy games for their children, so it's just another waste of time.

It's like the knife crime stuff in the UK at the moment, banning all combat knifes etc, do they really think that will stop knife crime??? I'm sure the person commiting the offence will just pick up a kitchen knife instead to do "the business"

Honestly, it's about time politicians stop wasting time and money on completely uninforceable policies.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Yes exactly, its as stupid as the 2 girls that inspired "super size me".

one was 13? and weighed 250? pounds and other was 17 and weighed 350 pounds???????

and they tried to sue macdonalds

thats not even realistic.

their argument was "we eat mcdonalds for every meal all year round!"
Well guess what, its called junk food for a reason.. anyways I think the case got thrown out.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1


They did this so a kid wouldn't sneak around and buy the game themselves, so they need a parent (or any adult) to get it for them. If the parent is doing their job, the kid shouldn't have a need to sneak around. The kid should either know that getting such a game is not worth their time and/or something their parents would consider bad, or they should have earned enough trust from their parents for the parents to allow them to make the purchase on their own with the knowledge the kid can handle it.

Now it's broken down into two possibilities. One, the kid approaches their parent to buy the game and the parent does. Great--family trust, bonding, happy times. Second scenario, either the parent won't let the kid get it or the kid is afraid to ask their parent. They enlist outside assistance, parent finds out, kid gets in trouble and the parents loose trust. This latter scenario will probably be the most frequently occuring, and it's entirely due to a lack of communication and respect on both parties.


All that I'm saying is that the burden of raising the kids, of teaching them what is right and what is wrong, should be on the shoulders of the parents. Not a rating board, not a store, not the government. You had the kid, either planned or otherwise, so it's your responsibility to know what they do, who they do it with, and why they do it. Not Walmart's, not Rockstar Games, just you.



If a child lies to me about *anything* my trust is broken and hard to repair. They lie and buy a game and I find out, it is likely going in the garbage and not coming out. They take my credit card and STEAL from me, it will be much worse. Likely will result in the loss of privileges like going out *without* me and other things equally horrifying.

How is it not doing my job if I look at a rating, decide my child does not need such a mature/violent/whatever game and say NO. That rating you seem to rail so hard against, is a very good way for me to parent effectively. It helps this mother know what my child is buying, without having to buy it and THEN be upset.

You sound as if you are a teen/tween yourself and do not have your own children. Trust is earned and trust can be broken. If my child LIES/STEALS and goes behind my back, that is not a lack of respect on my part, but theirs. Doing what the kids want isn't the happy happy mutual bonding part of being a parent, THAT is being a friend. Kids can have plenty of friends, they need parents to guide them and sometimes, that means doing what is more difficult by saying NO



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Okay, I admit, I didn't read the entire thread. Anyway, I think that having to be a certain age to buy adult video games can be unfair, but is generally positive. I'm underage, and I admit it's going to suck. I always thought people complaining about violent video games was silly, but I see their points now. It really should be up to the parents, but unfortunately there are a lot of irresponsible parents. My boyfriend's little brother just turned seven years old and has been playing extremely violent video games for a long time. It definitely influences him and now he just wants games with more killing. He says "I like killing" and "Look, I'm going to blow this guy's head off!" He doesn't realize it's wrong. His mother doesn't care and his father is an avid gamer and doesn't seem to see the problem either. This kid isn't allowed to watch rated R movies, but can play games rated M for mature, where he can actually interact with the violence. Does anyone else see the irony in this?

Edit: I forgot to mention in my post that my point is if the parents realize that if the games are banned to buy at a certain age, maybe there's a good reason they shouldn't buy them for their kids. People don't seem to take video games rating to heart. Okay, I realize my post might not have made sense, but it did in my head, I swear....



[edit on 8/4/2005 by Ariana]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Guess what you will have scanned in a few years when you rent a mature or adult video game?
How many guesses do you want?
Ok i'll just give you an answer: National ID Card.
Guess who will know that you like to shoot up some bad guys or watch 3D models get down and dirty? Thats right the Federal Government.

Kiss your privacy goodbye!


Urn

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ariana
Okay, I realize my post might not have made sense, but it did in my head, I swear....

actually...it made perfect sense...

and i thought the most thought provoking part of your post was this:


Originally posted by Ariana This kid isn't allowed to watch rated R movies, but can play games rated M for mature, where he can actually interact with the violence. Does anyone else see the irony in this?

yes...i DEFINATLY see the irony...



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I made it sound like the kid actually likes real killing. That's not what I meant to imply at all. For the record. And for some reason, I can't edit that post.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by llpoolej
If a child lies to me about *anything* my trust is broken and hard to repair.
...


Very true, and the way it should be. As a former child, my parents made it very clear to me that I'd be in it very deep if they caught me in a lie (and proved it whenever they did). They also made it very clear that I could ask them for anything and receive a straight-up, adult reason why I couldn't have something if they didn't/couldn't get me something. I had no need to go behind their back for something like this, and that was the point I was trying to make. It was the things I knew I'd never get from asking them--drinking, smokes, etc.--that I ended up going behind their backs for and getting in a crap load of trouble for when they found out.



How is it not doing my job if I look at a rating, decide my child does not need such a mature/violent/whatever game and say NO. That rating you seem to rail so hard against, is a very good way for me to parent effectively. It helps this mother know what my child is buying, without having to buy it and THEN be upset.


My personal opinion is that you should be up to date on your child's habits and desires to know what a game is about before it becomes an issue. I grew up with Nintendo and Super Nintendo, when this wasn't an issue. But when it came to movies, my parents would go so far as to watch the movie before hand without me to determine if it was appropriate or not.

If you're that concerned about the videogames your kid is playing, you can do the same thing. How hard would it be to rent the game and spend ten minutes trying to figure out whether you should let your kid play it or not before you buy it? I don't know your background or your abilities when it comes to playing video games, but if it's that important to you wouldn't you rather know for sure a game meets all of YOUR criteria before you purchase it? Maybe that M-Rated game he really wants is overrated because there's a couple of swear words in there; maybe that T-rated game has some kind of symbolism you'd rather not your kid play with. Why let someone else decide what is good or is not good for your kid?

The flip side to this is, with the ratings, now you don't buy that game for your kid because it's M-rated. So he really wants it, goes behind your back, and gets it anyways. You find out, loose all (or most) trust for him, toss the game, and you and/or he are out $60 aside from the harsh feelings that are going to take months to get back. Why not take the time to find out for yourself if the game is good or bad, and if it's bad then explain why it is yourself.

Take the 20 minutes to go down to Blockbuster and rent the game, you're out $4. Come home, spend 10-15 minutes trying to get the hang of the controls so you can play through a level, spend half an hour playing that level, and make the decision yourself. Now you're out $4 and a little over an hour, and you can take the time to explain--on an adult-to-adult level--that this game is not something you want them to play for such and such reason. You now have a stronger bond, and you don't have to worry about him going behind your back. You don't have to work another day to get that $60 back, you haven't lost trust in him, and you don't have to waste months or years trying to rebuild that trust. All for a little over an hour of your time and less than you make in an hour even if you make minimum wage.

As far as the rest of your post (I won't quote it here to keep this somewhat short), I'm 24, no kids. I know the things that I've done in the past that were disrespect on my part, and I know things that I wish my parents would have done differently. My parents bought me a lot of the stuff I asked for, I'll admit that, but they would talk to me whenever there was something I couldn't get. Most of the time it was just because they didn't want to spoil me (which may or may not have worked), but a lot of times they had a solid reason. They told me no, they guided me. I agree that's what a parent should do, but it should be based on their own informed decisions, not based on what someone else decides. I personally don't think reading a label makes you truly informed on the contents of a video game. One person's idea of violence or sexual contents may be much stricter or much looser than yours. You should be able to know enough about what's going on to tell your kid why they can't play it, and "Because these people say so" doesn't make a good parent in my opinion.

EDIT: forgot to remove the quote I said I'd keep out (had to read it from somewhere...)

[edit on 8/8/2005 by MCory1]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
My opinion is: If the kid isn't adversely affected by the game, he's mature enough to play it.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by chitoryu12
My opinion is: If the kid isn't adversely affected by the game, he's mature enough to play it.


Okay, that makes sense and I agree, but how do you find out if the kid is going to be adversely affected? Have him play and then see what happens? I'm just a little confused.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I agree with what you are all saying about parenting, lack of parenting might describe it better. I have a different opinion on the ban. I believe the govt wants our children exposed to this kind of sex and violence and believe there are also subliminal messages in the games. Its ironic that they would restrict or ban these games but the purpose may be to draw controversy and attention creating the desire for children to want to play these games more. Or its just a strategic move towards making the public believe they are proteting our children.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I'm 13 , Grew up listening to my cousins music and playing his games ( Deathmetal and stuff like GTA ) . I use adults to buy me tickets to movies and alcohol and that sorta stuff . I don't ever have the urge to go out and kill someone because I grew up with violence , I think censorship is horrible . Violence and sex are part of our existance , and if we ever try to denie our base animal insticts were #ed . What good does censorship do ? I think a 4 year old watching explicit material is just bad for them but I think a 10 year old can handle that kinda stuff .. People don't give em the credit they deserve . I have noticed all that stuff were violence isnt cared about until sex comes into play and it all goes crazy .

[edit on CSTue3422pm05 No by unbeltedjoker]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
My personal opinion is that you should be up to date on your child's habits and desires to know what a game is about before it becomes an issue.


I agree 100% with that. But, hmm..let's see...what is the one thing teenagers don't normally do? Oh, that's right...talk to their parents. Of course I realize that not all teens are the same way, and some actually do have good standing relationships with their parents. However, if most of them were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


I grew up with Nintendo and Super Nintendo, when this wasn't an issue.


Uh...ever play Bad Fur Day? For the NES? Those kind of games did exist.


But when it came to movies, my parents would go so far as to watch the movie before hand without me to determine if it was appropriate or not.


Now that's just redundant. I am certainly not questioning your parents judgement, but movie rating systems were in place LONG before game and TV ratings. Why is there a difference in opinion?


How hard would it be to rent the game and spend ten minutes trying to figure out whether you should let your kid play it or not before you buy it?


No offense to anyone here, but not many parents are "hip" to the gaming scene just yet (I am, and I am a parent.). One more generation, ok?


Why let someone else decide what is good or is not good for your kid?


As I said above, not may parents are "hip" to the gaming scene. An example:

"So, Johnny, what kind of games do you want to get for your birthday?"

"*sigh* Psh, Mom, you know...GTA-Vice City."

"Oh. Ok, so what does it do?"

"Gawd Mom, you are such a dork. You know, drive a car around and do...you know, stuff."

"Oh. Ok, that doesn't sound bad."


Why not take the time to find out for yourself if the game is good or bad, and if it's bad then explain why it is yourself.


That's what I use the rating system for. Is some Joe Government telling me what is good for my kids based off of some ruling? Ok. Maybe it's sad that we don't live in a June Cleaver world anymore, but I work. So does my husband. That and my girls go to sporting events (their choice), and extracurricular school activities that I am a part of. We spend a heck of a lot of time together. And I still have "normal" life to go through. Spending one hour a day "screening" a video game just isn't realistic. I wish I had that kind of time. I could read my kids another story.


Take the 20 minutes to go down to Blockbuster and rent the game, you're out $4. Come home, spend 10-15 minutes trying to get the hang of the controls so you can play through a level, spend half an hour playing that level, and make the decision yourself.


You would know yourself that this isn't a fair basis to get a feel for the game, right? One level? 10 minutes? I never played GTA, or Medal of Honor, or Spilnter Cell, but the ones that I have played are so nice and sweet in the first few levels, and horrendous the next.


Now you're out $4 and a little over an hour, and you can take the time to explain--on an adult-to-adult level--that this game is not something you want them to play for such and such reason.


Why waste an hour when you can cut to the chase?

I would monitor the purchases, and if it was borderline objectionable, I would watch him play for a while. Then, using that basis, I can decide on whether I want him to play it. Out $60? Heck no. That's what E-bay or friends, or myself, are for.



You should be able to know enough about what's going on to tell your kid why they can't play it, and "Because these people say so" doesn't make a good parent in my opinion.


I can agree on this part. I really can. But I still go back to my argument that some people need these ratings to help guide the PARENTS, too.

I don't agree on bans, but I do agree on restrictions. I don't like how nasty, evil and downright sadistic some games have become. But then, I don't buy them. Nor play them. And I do watch what my kids play. Sly Cooper is a great game for the 9 and 10 year olds. I bought that game based off of the rating system. (And the Internet does help, too, in searching for reviews)



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by unbeltedjoker
I'm 13 ...
I use adults to buy me tickets to movies and alcohol and that sorta stuff .


Well, that's a great lead in for a well positioned debate.


I think censorship is horrible . Violence and sex are part of our existance , and if we ever try to denie our base animal insticts were [naughty word]****[/naughty word] .


No one is denying your basic animal instincts. But if we were left to rely on soley those instincts, then we wouldn't be human. We would be animals. I like to think violence is part of our past, and sex is necessary for enjoyment and procreation. Certainly not for exploitation.


What good does censorship do ? ... but I think a 10 year old can handle that kinda stuff .


Hey, I have a ten year old. No way, buddy. She doesn't need to see the documented life of a crack whore getting smacked up by her pimp so he can get more money for his jacked up car.

I hate to be biased against you, but I think that by the attitude you portray in your posts, you could have benefitted from some stricter censorship.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   


Parents are annoyed that their children may encounter a sexual scene in a computer game that features people brutally murdering each other.

So decapitating people with chainsaws and throwing molotov cocktails at police cars is fun, but throw in a nude woman and we've crossed into a forbidden realm here.

It seems there is no limit to the violence in games, as long as there is nothing sexual.
Really this should be the other way around. I wouldnt mind if kids played a game and then had sex with someone, but I dont want to be gunned down by a 8 year old on a killing spree imitating his favourite game. The way censorship works (in Australia at least), it's actually worse to have consenting sex between 2 adults than to have a character gunning down innocent people. This is just about the craziest law ever.

No one is denying your basic animal instincts. But if we were left to rely on soley those instincts, then we wouldn't be human. We would be animals

We are animals. Don't let your H-Sap ego get in the way of this fact. This is the reason these games exist and, possibly, the reason why its unhealthy to restrict them too much. maybe if you let your kids play the occasional GTA they wouldnt have snapped and killed their teacher in a hail of bullets. probably not though.

[edit on 28-12-2005 by feebus]



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by feebus
We are animals. Don't let your H-Sap ego get in the way of this fact. This is the reason these games exist and, possibly, the reason why its unhealthy to restrict them too much. maybe if you let your kids play the occasional GTA they wouldnt have snapped and killed their teacher in a hail of bullets. probably not though.


Sorry, but my ego will get in the way. Ego does not transform an animal into a human. Morals, empathy, logical thought processes...these help form a human.

Your view on this is that our egos brought these games to life, and therefore it is necessary to play them in order to grow up responsible moral characters of society?

What a crock. And since you quoted me, and then said:



maybe if you let your kids play the occasional GTA they wouldnt have snapped and killed their teacher in a hail of bullets.


I am going to take this personally.

My children are not a bunch of spoiled Suburbanites whose parents bought them love and ignored their subtle pleas for help and drug ridden delusions until it went too far. To group my children into this category is appaling.

If I could predict what my children will do against society years from now, be it good or bad, I would be rich marketing this tool to other parents. SInce I do not possess such a wonderful gift, I rely on the knowledge that my children are taken care of emotionally before they are taken care of materialistically. My children's babysitter does not consist of a video game of questionable content.

And on the sex issue: it isn't the fact that it is sex. Isn't the scene depeicted a rape situation involving several men? Does that make it better than blowing a man's brain out?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join