You Played Violent Games - Why Can't Your Kids?
An anonymous reader writes: "On the Wired site, Clive Thompson has up an article that points out a sobering truth: gamers are getting older. Folks who grew up playing videogames like Doom and Quake are now facing parental decisions with their own kids regarding appropriate content. Thompson cites well known gamer dads like Kotaku's Brian Crecente, discussing some of the approaches folks educated in gaming take with their own offspring: '"Everybody knows, as an adult, that the world is not always a nice place," Crecente told me. "But I don't want him to know that yet. I want him to have a childhood." So he disallows games with "realistic" combat, like World War II titles, or Resistance: Fall of Man, but permits highly cartoony shooting, like Starfox on the Nintendo DS -- since he regards it as essentially as abstract as playing cops and robbers with your fingers as guns.' Where do you think gamer parents should draw the line? If you have kids, what approach are you taking to introducing them to gaming? How old is 'old enough' to start fragging?"
Your kids can't because they're more easily influenced by media such as games, TV and movies. That's why kids are always trying to do kung-fu on each other or trying to do wrestling moves and breaking their arms.
Dog Pants wrote:Your kids can't because they're more easily influenced by media such as games, TV and movies. That's why kids are always trying to do kung-fu on each other or trying to do wrestling moves and breaking their arms.
Which we all did too I expect.
Mostly we turned out fine. Mostly.
I think the issue now is that games are a lot more realistic. so there's probably some risk of kids getting fucked up. but that's really down to the parents more than anything, judging what the kids are old enough for and making sure they understand it's not real.
However, i do wonder if playing violent games lets kids get their anger out on computers, rather than each other.
Fair point about kids taking out their frustration on video games rather than each other. Parents are ultimately responsible for their kids' behaviour, but a rating system at least gives a guideline. Not that many parents seem to care about ratings on games. It'll be a generation or two before the majority of parents understand that most computer games aren't for kids.
Interesting point, Berk. I used to have a major, *major* anger control issue when I was a kid. Borderline "there is something wrong with your brain" major. I almost beat a kid into hospital with a branch once. I *did* put a kid into hospital (but only briefly) with a knee/groin interaction. And then, when I was about 10ish, it suddenly all went away.
I always figured that I just had a sudden revelation about how to not get so angry at idiots. But now that you mention it, it does wierdly coincide with when I got my first computer. Course, it probably is just that: a coincidence. But I do know if im frustrated with someone, blowing the shit out of things in a computer game makes me feel a lot more relaxed.
Yep, comparing them to a movie is the most simplest way of describing what I'd let my children play.
I would NOT let my child play Grand Theft Auto unless they were 15/16 I think, as that's a more reasonable age than 18.
However, it all depends on the subject as Wrestling games nowadays are very violent, but as long as the child understands it's not "real" just stage acting, then I'd have no issue with it.
I think parents that have been gamers through their childhood should "in theory" be able to make better decisions on what to allow their child to play.
You Played Violent Games - Why Can't Your Kids?
