Saw a very young kid being sold a copy of MW3 in Gamestop today.
polycounter lvl 11
Was not impressed to visit Gamestop today to find a 8-9 year old boy being sold MW3. The clerk warned his mother of the graphic nature of the game, however they should have been flat out denied a copy by the sales assistant, it was very clear it was for a very young boy as he brought the game to the till while his mother paid. I'm surprised by Gamestops policy of only issuing a warning; but I guess it comes down to the money at the end of the day. Shame on the mother as well.
Am I just getting old or is Gamestops policy just not cool? When I was 8-9 I was playing Super Mario Land 2 on the Gameboy, not watching a child be blown apart in a gas attack that halves Europe's population... Not to mention what happens at the end of the SP!
*Disclaimer* Gamestop in Europe is nowhere near as blatantly evil as Gamestop in America. Which is why I'm surprised here.
Am I just getting old or is Gamestops policy just not cool? When I was 8-9 I was playing Super Mario Land 2 on the Gameboy, not watching a child be blown apart in a gas attack that halves Europe's population... Not to mention what happens at the end of the SP!
*Disclaimer* Gamestop in Europe is nowhere near as blatantly evil as Gamestop in America. Which is why I'm surprised here.
This discussion has been closed.
Replies
If this mother feels her son is mature enough to play and I'm sure he has already played then that is up to her.
I played mk and all the other games as a kid and was taught the difference between reality and fantasy.
The Gamespot employee can't automatically assume that the child will be playing the game. It could be a present for another family member and the boy just happened to know the title and helped his mother pick it.
I think the warning policy is fair if there is an adult present, the responsibility is theirs. If Gamespot sold a game to a child without a parent/adult being present, well then thats another story....
It taught me I could rip people's hearts out of their bodies with ease. Until I took an arrow to the knee.
OP:
Aye, I'm feeling the old age creeping up on me as well with games. Parents taught me what was right and wrong.
I had Doom for the SNES and my dad saw the ending of it with a bunch of cuss words. He wasn't too happy and asked where I got this filth. At least he cared.
'Ma'am this game features alot of very graphic and bloody violence, including scenes where the player shoots civillians, as well as being widely regarded to not be suitable to children' Might say something more.
E: As an extra talking point, I think it's fine to have the odd violent game or film, but you get some real asshole kids when all they watch is 18 rated shit at 10 or 12.
But seriously though, the store would've most likely denied selling the game, even though they don't have to, but parent was there which means go ahead.
Would your opinion be different had it been a porno DVD that was being sold to the 9 year old?
Of course Gamestop are to blame. Surely their policy should be 'no way' instead of 'I'm not saying no to 60 fuck that'.
Lets pose a hypothetical counterpoint here:
Would that kid have gotten into an 18-rated movie? Even if accompanied by his mother. Of course not.
Its easy to prove that the boy would be going into the cinema to watch the movie. Its not easy to prove the game would be played at home by the boy and not another family member who is of age.
In few words. No. Would I agree with it? No. Would I buy it for my 9 year old? Not a chance. I don't think there are too many parents out there that would go buy a porno for their kids though. A video game, music cd, movie? Sure but porno...Now that is a stretch!
Also what gets me is that a lot of the time these kids go on xbl/psn or whatever with the headset and can be really badly abused, ive heard some messed up stuff on Xbl like properly racist foul stuff and if the kids didnt know it already its worrying that they are learning it that young in that way.
not really a lot that can be done about it though, i would be interested to see if a kid that started playing violent games at a young age was more aggressive than a kid that only started playing a bit later on in life around 18 or somewhere around the age certificate.
I also believe that (and I could be totally wrong here) that with an accompanied adult or guardian that the kid could go in. Not sure just guessing here.
We had that incident in sweden with movies relating to the twilight movies, tons of persons under 15 had seen all the previous movies, big fans, and then they'll suddenly decide to up the age to 15 on the most recent movie, which means, no one under 15, even if parents are with them can go see it.
So you had all these fans who had read all the books, seen all the previous movies at the cinemas, as it is a part of the experience, and then suddenly one day they can't experience their favorite series on the big screen ever, no way at all.
Parents should be the ones to decide, even if it means shitty parents will make shitty decisions.
I did watch quite some stuff at 8 too that I probably should not have seen, and all it did was influence my imagination further
Well to your first part here. Kids are assholes and they act tough (like most people ) on the net because of the safety of hiding behind the fake names and distance. Take those same kids and put them in the same room as everyone else and 9 times out of 10 they don't say shit.
As for the second. This is an impossible study. You would literally have to have an exact clone of a person with the exact same mindsets, etc to do this study. So many factors can lead to violence or the way people react. Maybe the kid that played violent games was an all around popular kid and well liked and the other kid that didn't play games was not and got picked on and bullied. Go to their senior year of high school and kid that played violent games stays out of trouble because he has used the video games and the made up world of fantasy to get rid of his anger and release frustrations but the other kid that was bullied all the time did not have this outlet and just explodes one day and shoots up his school.
NOW before anyone says it's a horrible example and there is no proof of that I KNOW THIS... I'm just saying that a study like this to be done correctly is basically impossible due to so many factors that shape who we are and how we react to situations.
The parents are to blame anyway. The store can't be blamed for selling the game. Nor can it be blamed for not advising the parent about the content. Read the bloody cover or research the game before buying. Any good parent would do that...right?
I let my son play Halo with me. He's 6. He played Wolverine Origins and watched the Wolverine movie but he knows they are make believe. That when people are shot in real life they die. I don't shelter him at all and overall he is pretty understanding. Would I let him watch a tit flick on skinimax? Hell no! If he says a bad word he goes on timeout. He said Oh Damn a while back and asked him where he learned that. He said the Simpsons game. So it was removed for a while until he understood that it wasn't ok to talk like that.
I'm with you, I remember when my parents sat me down and explained I should not go around beating up people right before we bought MK2. The rest is history I turned out fine and me and my parents bonded over fatalities.
I think I was 13 though so I may have to agree with you in this case because he's a bit too young but it's tough when your friends all have the "it" item and you can't get it because mummy says no.
How's that working out for ya?
though I can really appreciate your concern.
And "warning the parent that there is unsuitable content doesn't mean much to most parents" is also ridiculous.
The parent made a choice, a choice that is blatantly hers; points to the contrary are moot. Our entire generation grew up on games like MK, we're fine, so will be the little impressionable teddy bear cuddly wuddly super snugglies that are our children.
get off the blame wagon.
Oh, and Edit: I'm sick to death of games being compared to porn, they're not porn, nor anything at all what the hell so ever like it, so stop with the false dichotomy.
snap... cant remember how old i was so i was young but boy i loved that game....
too many parents dont consider the violence in games enough... i think the name "game" is partly to blame... i still dont mind the comic violence in MK, doom et al at all compared to more realistic but still emotionally infantile MW3s of this world.
Same with hitting the snooze button, it's your fault for being 15 minutes late to work, not the clocks.
haha i love how nudity and even porn is being compared to exectuting/murdering 1000's of people in an average play through of a game. or going to see a movie which has graphic violence like saw or hostel and because its rated R kids can go see it with their parents.
Heaven forbid...the human body. cover them titties, they will warp your kids mind! because the human body without clothes is....immoral! now go play call of duty and battlefield and be indoctrinated to worship American special forces /army invading and conquring other countries.
Im pretty sure i would rather have my kid see all the tits/sex they want rather than something graphic call of duty or the torture in saw/hostle, or the blatant propaganda of most military themed films.
But i guess that is like asking why society wont take responsibility for it;s own decisions? and trys to shift the fault away when ever possible.
+1 PixelMasher, feel the same way, but that seems to most be prominent in America, views are close but a bit more forgiving in Canada, and when i spent time in Germany, it was the opposite, where violence, was more likely to raise the ratings of a movies than sex is, kinda fucked up when images of someone getting tortured and murdered, in a movie get a lower rating, than something that is part of most people everyday life.
Sports and games are simulated combat, kids and humans are suppose to fight. They are natural instincts, thoughts, and behavior. Repressing those tendencies is never a good idea, its better to talk about them and help your kid understand them and health ways to express them.
While I'd say majority of parents were much more concerned about sex in games, there were plenty who just did not care at all what their kids played, and plenty that thought it was a losing battle to stop them. Of the parents that DID stop their kid from having a game, the kid would often mutter, "Whatever, _friend's name_ has it so I just play it there anyway." And then there were SUPER STRICT parents that wouldn't let their 13 year old kid play anything above a E10+ rating (ie. 'Teen' rating was out--which really, is mild stuff compared to anything you can see on TV any time of the day.)
Before people argue that I'm saying violence is worse than sex for kids to view or vice versa, I am making no such assumptions. I honesly can't say if it does affect a kid negatively or not. IMO, just raise your kid well and let them have strong, good values instilled in them in their home life, and what games they play probably won't factor in a great deal.
Oh, and to the OP: Legally the retailer cannot sell the game to anyone under 18 years of age. If the parent is buying if for their kid, we must make them aware of what the rating is and why, and then it is 100% their choice. And it must be the party that is over 18 that pays. If a parent or guardian wants to buy GTA4 for their 4 year old, no matter what we tell them is in the game, that is their legal right. (Which actually happened once--this dad insisted his little 4-year old girl enjoyed playing it with him, and he just avoided the prostitue stuff or whatever.)
Maybe the parent realises the kid is going to play it regardless of whether she buys it or he pirates it/borrows it/rents it/steals it.
The parent has a choice:
Supervise the game playing, or let him play it unsupervised.
Maybe the child's behavior is being closely monitored? Have you thought of that? Maybe the game was a reward for getting straight A+ on his report card.
Maybe they're from a broken home, and they want to play some MW3 as a way of bonding with his older brother and cousins on the other side of the country who were torn away from him in a messy custody battle.
Violent video games have not proven to cause violent behavior in children.
Im not weighing in, no opinion here, just jumping in because I genuinely dont understand your argument. Isn't sex a much more essential and productive part of human instinct than violence?
Sorry they were completely separate trains of thought, I meant to space them apart, I was just confused at the discussion earlier about "you wouldn't sell a kid a porno, even with a parent."
See a boob It's rated-R. See a boob getting hacked off by a knife? It's PG-13.
On mah two cents toudaye:
Have you thought for once that if the Sales Rep refuses and try to explain the reason behind refusal to sell MW3 to a 9 year old kid could cause him his job?
You also might know that if customers do not have it their way, they are likely to make a huge issue out of it.
So, if the sales rep refuses, mother complains to the manager, manager ends up selling the game to the kid, than manager goes back to his office and writes down the complain and put soo much lame stuff that the sales rep never thought of doing. And finally, the sales rep ends up getting fired.
$11.00-$14.00 an hour is not worth taking all that shit you know. Trust me, I am sure when the guy warned kid's mother about the game, he was probably scared of her reaction.
It's not directly related but I was under the impression that the younger sex education was introduced at schools the lower that countries teenage pregnancy problem is. (even starting as young as 7-10)
You don't even have to go as far as saying porn vs violence, just nipple vs violence, and you get an extreme reaction, which is just a joke. Nudity, EVIL, murdering your enemies, GOOOOD. :P No respect for people with that kind of train of thought.
Really? Expecting them to have a refusal policy when it comes to selling incredibly graphic games to children borders on insanity, does it? A game that features children getting blown up and a scene where a guy gets slowly and brutally strangled from a first person view? What if that kid then goes and tries to re-inact that on his kid sister, thinking he's only playing, just like the game, and goes too far? That's ok though, right? You're not affected. So you can just say, 'MEH, parents fault, next thread'.
Nothing? Gamestop can't control that. They could have controlled what happened when I was there. It's their store. What's your point?
Explicit content.
Of course? Who is particularly blaming the sales rep? Its Gamestops policy that is fucked here. They should be instructing the sales reps to say 'sorry, no way'. But they aren't. Not because stupid parents is a good enough excuse (Its not) but they just want their 65 and fuck it if a strangled kid turns up on the news