I think parents get a bit of a raw deal when it comes to video game violence. They often get blamed if they allow their children to play these games but often though violence stems from parents putting their foot down. How many reports do you hear of kids going mental and killing their parents because they wouldn't buy them the latest violent video game, take their consoles off them, limit their gaming time.
If my sons friends all had GTA5 and they were 14-15 years old and my son asked for it, would I buy it ? Of course I would. The potential bullying that may occur because he didnt have the game probably outweighs the potential damage done by witnessing an imagined character kicking someone in the balls, shooting them in the head and running off with their money.
I think parents get a bit of a raw deal when it comes to video game violence. They often get blamed if they allow their children to play these games but often though violence stems from parents putting their foot down. How many reports do you hear of kids going mental and killing their parents because they wouldn't buy them the latest violent video game, take their consoles off them, limit their gaming time.
If my sons friends all had GTA5 and they were 14-15 years old and my son asked for it, would I buy it ? Of course I would. The potential bullying that may occur because he didnt have the game probably outweighs the potential damage done by witnessing an imagined character kicking someone in the balls, shooting them in the head and running off with their money.
Parents should be able to gauge whether their child is able to handle the content in any form of media. I've said in different threads of this ilk how cool my parents were for letting me at 7, 8, 9 years old watch all manner of violent films (we're talking 80's violence here), listening to music (always liked rock & rap) there weren't that many games of a violent nature when I was young and I had no real interest anyway but if I had, they would've let me I'm sure. They knew that I knew it wasn't real. They knew I could handle it. They drew the line at sex of course, no naughty late night films for young DC. It was never about me being left out, as I was the one who was allowed to watch/listen to these things and my friends weren't. But my gaming and TV time was always limited and I was essentially kicked out of the house if the weather was nice. But like I said in another post, there was always something to do back then.
Parents should be able to gauge whether their child is able to handle the content in any form of media. I've said in different threads of this ilk how cool my parents were for letting me at 7, 8, 9 years old watch all manner of violent films (we're talking 80's violence here), listening to music (always liked rock & rap) there weren't that many games of a violent nature when I was young and I had no real interest anyway but if I had, they would've let me I'm sure. They knew that I knew it wasn't real. They knew I could handle it. They drew the line at sex of course, no naughty late night films for young DC. It was never about me being left out, as I was the one who was allowed to watch/listen to these things and my friends weren't. But my gaming and TV time was always limited and I was essentially kicked out of the house if the weather was nice. But like I said in another post, there was always something to do back then.
Don't want to turn this into a discussion about old is old enough to start watching stuff that involves sex but i've always found it weird that seeing sex is worse than seeing violence when you are young
But when you reach adulthood its the exact opposite is true for the real world
(just to be clear i'm not saying children should watch porn, I just it humorous that the thing we should do when we grow up is more forbidden than the thing we shouldn't do
I think parents get a bit of a raw deal when it comes to video game violence. They often get blamed if they allow their children to play these games but often though violence stems from parents putting their foot down. How many reports do you hear of kids going mental and killing their parents because they wouldn't buy them the latest violent video game, take their consoles off them, limit their gaming time.
If my sons friends all had GTA5 and they were 14-15 years old and my son asked for it, would I buy it ? Of course I would. The potential bullying that may occur because he didnt have the game probably outweighs the potential damage done by witnessing an imagined character kicking someone in the balls, shooting them in the head and running off with their money.
So all your son at 14 says "I want the latest XXXXX, all my friends have it" You would just roll over? I would have had everything at 15 if I was in his shoes.
So you want to impose more restrictions on all Adults when buying games, because some of them allow minors to view it?
What you are advocating is censorship, and that is a very dangerous thing indeeed.
Why? You cannot buy the items unless you are old enough (and in some cases you can't buy it even if you are enough if you cannot prove your age), and the content featured on the packaging is highly restricted to ensure it is suitable.
This is complete bollocks. I cannot believe you are actually advocating censorship!
What you are wanting are not boundaries, they go far beyond that, they are highly restricted access on items that already have perfectly adequate restrictions applied to them.
If people who are meat the restrictions choose to buy it for someone who doesn't then that is their fault. Any actions that occur should be the responsibility of them.
That because you have made your mind up and are unwilling to listen to the voice of rationality...
If people think laws and regulation is 'censorship', then they need their head examined: it's the basis of an successful civilization.
There is clear evidence that regulations on digital media is just plain inadequate and in regards with the Internet, governments are only now thankfully slowly getting around to some regulation NOT 'censorship'.
And why shouldn't strong mature titles be given a rating, where retailers have to display it in an restricted area. Certainly not too much to ask, whatsoever!
Your basis that restriction is 'censorship' is dangerous and certainly not rational!
If people think laws and regulation is 'censorship', then they need their head examined: it's the basis of an successful civilization.
There is clear evidence that regulations on digital media is just plain inadequate and in regards with the Internet, governments are only now thankfully slowly getting around to some regulation NOT 'censorship'.
And why shouldn't strong mature titles be given a rating, where retailers have to display it in an restricted area. Certainly not too much to ask, whatsoever!
Your basis that restriction is 'censorship' is dangerous and certainly not rational!
So get Alcohol off the shelves. Stop selling paracetamol on supermarket shelves. Don't let B&Q sell pointy things. All of which are far more damaging.
You may as well put newspapers and medical journals I a separate area. I have to be honest you are overly sensitive and humans have free will and legislation is a corruption and limitation of that.
The Stasi would like this train of thought though and a career in GCHQ beckons!
So get Alcohol off the shelves. Stop selling paracetamol on supermarket shelves. Don't let B&Q sell pointy things. All of which are far more damaging.
You may as well put newspapers and medical journals I a separate area. I have to be honest you are overly sensitive and humans have free will and legislation is a corruption and limitation of that.
The Stasi would like this train of thought though and a career in GCHQ beckons!
Alcohol is restricted and in an area of its own.
Again, restricted by law is NOT censorship; since laws and regulations are clearly laid out to the public.
Society will always have them in place; the debate is always how it's applied and whether it's adequate.
Again, restricted by law is NOT censorship; since laws and regulations are clearly laid out to the public.
Society will always have them in place; the debate is always how it's applied and whether it's adequate.
Yeah. Nothing to stop kids attempting to buy alcohol either. It's not locked up in a glass cabinet. There is no difference. Age rated games are already restricted. There is no need for a further seperation. It would be pointless and possibly have the exact opposite of what you wish to happen. The forbidden is always appealing and early teens would be even more drawn to it. Separate sections is verging on insanity.
Yeah. Nothing to stop kids attempting to buy alcohol either. It's not locked up in a glass cabinet. There is no difference. Age rated games are already restricted. There is no need for a further seperation. It would be pointless and possibly have the exact opposite of what you wish to happen. The forbidden is always appealing and early teens would be even more drawn to it. Separate sections is verging on insanity.
Not insanity at all; lads mags now have to be covered up in Supermarkets - it's just much needed common sense. Not censorship.
I tell you some more common sense: it's tightening up rules on purchasing age rated games online/digitally. At the moment any 10 year old child can create a fake account and use gift cards (that parents/relatives gave them) to purchase any any rated games they like.
Why aren't there separate gift cards for kids and adults (for mature content)? Seems like utter madness to me.
Again, regulation like this is always behind and playing catch up, but historically we know that loopholes like these will be closed.
They will undoubtedly. Kids still get alcohol though. Likewise games. Covering up the awful lads mags is censorship though. Personally I don't like them but when I was younger the sight of a copy of Fiesta on the top shelf didn't really affect me. Must be well adjusted.
As thing stand the way for a child to get a 18 rated game = Mommy buy me this game, kid gets the game
Under any form of regulation ever that people would except = Mommy clearly you are over 18, you've bought me 18 rated games before, can I this one as well, Kid gets the game
Adding another step to the process does nothing, if you want an example, the government tried to clamp down on internet piracy, they get websites like the piratebay blocked, seem like a victory for the government right? that is until you realise before the bans you would type ''piratebay'' on google and after all the legal wrangling you now type ''piratebay proxy'' on google it wasn't worth trying to stop piracy it isn't worth the effort of trying to legislate 18 rated games even more
: Was in Asda the other week, some wee nyaff tryed to trade in a 15 cert game. The lass behind the counter wouldn't take it without ID.
Re: Lads mags, by your own statement if something is limited by law it isn't censorship. Could you point me in the direction of the legally binding, passed by parliament act that requires them to be covered? If there is none it is censorship.
Modern tills have age bars, I have to wait for someone to say I am 18 if I want to buy a bottle of plonk on the self service checkout. Under 18's at the checkout can't clear other under 18's. Maybe there should be whole separate stores for adult products. That would be insanity commercially and any government that passed such an idiotic law would be lobbied to hell and back and would have tesco et al supporting the other side. Why do you think no one has legislated to ban page 3 models?
If people think laws and regulation is 'censorship', then they need their head examined: it's the basis of an successful civilization.
Laws and Regulations are what are already in place, there are already restrictions on what the packaging can depict, and then restrictions on the sale too.
Extra regulations would not accomplish anything other than making the purchase of these products more time-consuming for those that are allowed to buy them.
Civilisation doesn't need draconian restrictions to be successful, it needs people to actually use their heads.
There is clear evidence that regulations on digital media is just plain inadequate and in regards with the Internet, governments are only now thankfully slowly getting around to some regulation NOT 'censorship'.
Go on then, show me this clear evidence if it exists...
And why shouldn't strong mature titles be given a rating, where retailers have to display it in an restricted area. Certainly not too much to ask, whatsoever!
But what would it accomplish over what the current system does? It would mean more barriers for legitimate buyer, and even with them it wouldn't stop minors getting hold of the games to play anyway.
Your basis that restriction is 'censorship' is dangerous and certainly not rational!
Your want of restrictions is the certainly rational anyway.
Guess what, hiding things from view, when they pose absolutely no risk to anyone is censorship!
The content in the game itself may be unsuitable, but the contents of the case certainly isn't. These pointless restrictions you want won't stop minors getting access to the inappropriate content, as the parents will just buy it for them anyway as they do now.
Not insanity at all; lads mags now have to be covered up in Supermarkets - it's just much needed common sense. Not censorship.
It is censorship, it is the act of censoring, removing from view, in the same way the removal of swear words and blurring out things such as genitalia, number plates and contact information is censoring,
Unlike games, Lads Mags often feature scantily clad women wearing underwear, they were covered because these images were deemed to be inappropriate, but of course game cases don't generally feature any inappropriate imagery.
I tell you some more common sense: it's tightening up rules on purchasing age rated games online/digitally. At the moment any 10 year old child can create a fake account and use gift cards (that parents/relatives gave them) to purchase any any rated games they like.
Why aren't there separate gift cards for kids and adults (for mature content)? Seems like utter madness to me.
And how exactly do you suggest a fix for this? How exactly would you prove the age of the purchaser?
I don't think parents understand PEGI ratings and I think if they did know more about it they would think twice before purchasing video games for their children. The more information you have the better equip you are to making good choices.
Oh and for the lads mags arguement they were told to cover up because there is a clear link between consumption of sexualised images, a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm (I stole that but it's basically true)
Oh and grown women should not be quoting songs from a mediocre Disney film about a talking snowman!
I don't think parents understand PEGI ratings and I think if they did know more about it they would think twice before purchasing video games for their children. The more information you have the better equip you are to making good choices. Oh and for the lads mags arguement they were told to cover up because there is a clear link between consumption of sexualised images, a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm (I stole that but it's basically true)
Oh and grown women should not be quoting songs from a mediocre Disney film about a talking snowman!
Woman in bra and panties = children will grow up to objectify them, cover them up quickly
Men almost naked with entire upper bodies showing on fitness magazines = not a problem
We are talking solely about the covers being covered so the content is irrelevant
Comments
If my sons friends all had GTA5 and they were 14-15 years old and my son asked for it, would I buy it ? Of course I would. The potential bullying that may occur because he didnt have the game probably outweighs the potential damage done by witnessing an imagined character kicking someone in the balls, shooting them in the head and running off with their money.
Parents should be able to gauge whether their child is able to handle the content in any form of media. I've said in different threads of this ilk how cool my parents were for letting me at 7, 8, 9 years old watch all manner of violent films (we're talking 80's violence here), listening to music (always liked rock & rap) there weren't that many games of a violent nature when I was young and I had no real interest anyway but if I had, they would've let me I'm sure. They knew that I knew it wasn't real. They knew I could handle it. They drew the line at sex of course, no naughty late night films for young DC. It was never about me being left out, as I was the one who was allowed to watch/listen to these things and my friends weren't. But my gaming and TV time was always limited and I was essentially kicked out of the house if the weather was nice. But like I said in another post, there was always something to do back then.
Don't want to turn this into a discussion about old is old enough to start watching stuff that involves sex but i've always found it weird that seeing sex is worse than seeing violence when you are young
But when you reach adulthood its the exact opposite is true for the real world
(just to be clear i'm not saying children should watch porn, I just it humorous that the thing we should do when we grow up is more forbidden than the thing we shouldn't do
So all your son at 14 says "I want the latest XXXXX, all my friends have it" You would just roll over? I would have had everything at 15 if I was in his shoes.
If people think laws and regulation is 'censorship', then they need their head examined: it's the basis of an successful civilization.
There is clear evidence that regulations on digital media is just plain inadequate and in regards with the Internet, governments are only now thankfully slowly getting around to some regulation NOT 'censorship'.
And why shouldn't strong mature titles be given a rating, where retailers have to display it in an restricted area. Certainly not too much to ask, whatsoever!
Your basis that restriction is 'censorship' is dangerous and certainly not rational!
So get Alcohol off the shelves. Stop selling paracetamol on supermarket shelves. Don't let B&Q sell pointy things. All of which are far more damaging.
You may as well put newspapers and medical journals I a separate area. I have to be honest you are overly sensitive and humans have free will and legislation is a corruption and limitation of that.
The Stasi would like this train of thought though and a career in GCHQ beckons!
Alcohol is restricted and in an area of its own.
Again, restricted by law is NOT censorship; since laws and regulations are clearly laid out to the public.
Society will always have them in place; the debate is always how it's applied and whether it's adequate.
Yeah. Nothing to stop kids attempting to buy alcohol either. It's not locked up in a glass cabinet. There is no difference. Age rated games are already restricted. There is no need for a further seperation. It would be pointless and possibly have the exact opposite of what you wish to happen. The forbidden is always appealing and early teens would be even more drawn to it. Separate sections is verging on insanity.
Not insanity at all; lads mags now have to be covered up in Supermarkets - it's just much needed common sense.
I tell you some more common sense: it's tightening up rules on purchasing age rated games online/digitally. At the moment any 10 year old child can create a fake account and use gift cards (that parents/relatives gave them) to purchase any any rated games they like.
Why aren't there separate gift cards for kids and adults (for mature content)? Seems like utter madness to me.
Again, regulation like this is always behind and playing catch up, but historically we know that loopholes like these will be closed.
As thing stand the way for a child to get a 18 rated game = Mommy buy me this game, kid gets the game
Under any form of regulation ever that people would except = Mommy clearly you are over 18, you've bought me 18 rated games before, can I this one as well, Kid gets the game
Adding another step to the process does nothing, if you want an example, the government tried to clamp down on internet piracy, they get websites like the piratebay blocked, seem like a victory for the government right? that is until you realise before the bans you would type ''piratebay'' on google and after all the legal wrangling you now type ''piratebay proxy'' on google it wasn't worth trying to stop piracy it isn't worth the effort of trying to legislate 18 rated games even more
Re: Lads mags, by your own statement if something is limited by law it isn't censorship. Could you point me in the direction of the legally binding, passed by parliament act that requires them to be covered? If there is none it is censorship.
Modern tills have age bars, I have to wait for someone to say I am 18 if I want to buy a bottle of plonk on the self service checkout. Under 18's at the checkout can't clear other under 18's. Maybe there should be whole separate stores for adult products. That would be insanity commercially and any government that passed such an idiotic law would be lobbied to hell and back and would have tesco et al supporting the other side. Why do you think no one has legislated to ban page 3 models?
Some people need to Let it go, Let it go...
Extra regulations would not accomplish anything other than making the purchase of these products more time-consuming for those that are allowed to buy them.
Civilisation doesn't need draconian restrictions to be successful, it needs people to actually use their heads.
Go on then, show me this clear evidence if it exists...
But what would it accomplish over what the current system does? It would mean more barriers for legitimate buyer, and even with them it wouldn't stop minors getting hold of the games to play anyway.
Your want of restrictions is the certainly rational anyway.
Guess what, hiding things from view, when they pose absolutely no risk to anyone is censorship!
The content in the game itself may be unsuitable, but the contents of the case certainly isn't. These pointless restrictions you want won't stop minors getting access to the inappropriate content, as the parents will just buy it for them anyway as they do now.
Unlike games, Lads Mags often feature scantily clad women wearing underwear, they were covered because these images were deemed to be inappropriate, but of course game cases don't generally feature any inappropriate imagery.
And how exactly do you suggest a fix for this? How exactly would you prove the age of the purchaser?
And some people will not be happy until their irrational thoughts are pandered too...
There is nothing wrong with the current system, and any system that succeeded would be just as open too.
Oh and for the lads mags arguement they were told to cover up because there is a clear link between consumption of sexualised images, a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm (I stole that but it's basically true)
Oh and grown women should not be quoting songs from a mediocre Disney film about a talking snowman!
Woman in bra and panties = children will grow up to objectify them, cover them up quickly
Men almost naked with entire upper bodies showing on fitness magazines = not a problem
We are talking solely about the covers being covered so the content is irrelevant
(sorry to go off topic)