Andreas do you have kids? I'm guessing no but even if you do what in the fuck gives you the right to think you can tell others what is suitable for their children to view or not view. You don't have that right. So get off your fucking soapbox cause you sound like a fucking douchebag. Seriously.
If you can't see the difference between the 9/11 example you provided of kids seeing it on TV (A REAL WORLD EVEN WITH ACTUAL REAL PEOPLE DYING) and a fucking polygon character being beaten, hung, stabbed and ass fucked then you have more issues to worry about. Seriously.
You are nothing more then a troll on these boards. Have hardly contributed to anything other then General Discussion and looking over your profile it is littered with warnings and infractions for trolling so my guess is this is not much more then that.
This really is not a moral dilemma, it is against the law plain and simple. Wether or not you let your child play the game is completely up to you as the parent. But in this instance selling the game was completely wrong. Personally the biggest thing that annoys me about this is that the clerk and evengamestop clearly has no respect for the industry as they dont take the age ratings seriously. Its like 'this is an 18 rated game' *wink* That attitude drives me mad, on one hand parents go mad saying we are destroying their childrens minds then on the other they buy them the games in the first place which are clearly marked and even the stores wont stop them and yet WE are the bad guys in this?
We meaning developers btw, I know im not in industry yet.
So it is solely the parents responsibility to know what the fuck they are giving their kids. Just like the fast food arguement. Know what the fuck your kids are eating. Know who their friends are. Know what they watch on tv. Know what they play for games.
Jesus christ be a fucking parent. That is all it takes... You don't need some dipshit at game stop to tell you that hey you shouldn't buy this. Research the god damn thing.
Forgive me but I think there is a difference between being a religious nutjob, and a guy who just thinks that kids should be protected from some things that their little brains aren't properly ready to process.
.
So does the catholic church, what authority do you have to say your opinions are right and theirs aren't? The point is you're making a subjective judgement call and trying to state it as a FACT that this is how it should have been done. Its much more complex than that, sure you can say you disagree with the issue, but it was handled how it should have been handled.
It isn't your job, or the catholic church's job and CERTAINLY NOT some random gamestop clerk's job to parent someone else's kids, that is the important part.
So it is solely the parents responsibility to know what the fuck they are giving their kids. Just like the fast food arguement. Know what the fuck your kids are eating. Know who their friends are. Know what they watch on tv. Know what they play for games.
Jesus christ be a fucking parent. That is all it takes... You don't need some dipshit at game stop to tell you that hey you shouldn't buy this. Research the god damn thing.
As far as if the kid is allowed to buy the game then no that is totally down to the retailer, But as far as if the kid should be allowed to play the game that is totally up to the parents. It is the same as Alcohol, you cant buy it till you are 21 but you can drink is from the age of 14 with your parents consent and supervision.
In the UK perhaps, I am not aware of any law in the US that prohibits a child's legal guardian from buying them a video game.
Then you are not aware of law. This is not about a video game this is about an age restricted material and on those ground then yes the store is breaking the law plain and simple If this wasnt against the law then they would not have age related stickers to begin with. As far as if the kid should play the game that is another can of worms entirely.
If you can't see the difference between the 9/11 example you provided of kids seeing it on TV (A REAL WORLD EVEN WITH ACTUAL REAL PEOPLE DYING) and a fucking polygon character being beaten, hung, stabbed and ass fucked then you have more issues to worry about. Seriously.
When it comes to a seriously young kid viewing that shit, there is no difference. They are violent acts, whether real or simulated.
You are nothing more then a troll on these boards. Have hardly contributed to anything other then General Discussion and looking over your profile it is littered with warnings and infractions for trolling so my guess is this is not much more then that.
Actually if you look over any threads I've started, vast majority are sharing things that are good for this community. I don't post a lot of art, and that is my perrogative. As for any infractions, I can be opinionated, sure. But, feel free to get personal, doesn't really affect me.
Oh and I edited my above post to cover some things you enquired about that I'd like to get your opinion on, as y'know, I can actually discuss things like an adult without starting a pissing contest.
Then you are not aware of law. This is not about a video game this is about an age restricted material and on those ground then yes the store is breaking the law plain and simple If this wasnt against the law then they would not have age related stickers to begin with. As far as if the kid should play the game that is another can of worms entirely.
Alright, I may not be aware of the law. Please cite where this is prohibited in US law.
What I could find:
At present in the US, there is no federal law against the sale of violent video games to children. However there is a system of self-regulation governed by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). The ESRB is a self-regulatory body for the interactive entertainment software industry established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), formerly the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA). ESRB independently applies and enforces ratings, advertising guidelines, and online privacy principles adopted by the computer and video game industry. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) ratings are designed to provide information about video and computer game content, so consumers can make informed purchase decisions. ESRB ratings have two parts: rating symbols suggest age appropriateness for the game, and content descriptors indicate elements in a game that may have triggered a particular rating and/or may be of interest or concern.
and
In contrast to the system in the US, in the UK video games that depict "gross violence", "sexual activity" or "techniques likely to be useful in the commission of offences" must be classified under the British Board of Film Classification's (BBFC) film rating system under the Video Recordings Act of 1984. The Act provides that it is an offence to supply such a game to anyone below the age limit, punishable by a fine of up to £5000 or up to six months in prison. However, in the region of 90% of all titles released on to the market are exempt from this legal classification.
It's a 3 year old kid, so officially she shouldn't be allowed to play. On the other hand, you see that she quickly gets a grasp of what's going on, how her actions affect others, and that you shouldn't do to others what you don't want done to yourself.
Normally, a kid would learn this in a playground over several occasions because there everything is more nuanced. If you shove a kid he might not shove you back out of politeness or fear - but in the game it's very clear: you hit someone, they hit back. Do you like getting hit? No? Then don't hit others.
Am I saying that all kids should be allowed to play all games? No, and definitely not unsupervised. The problem with bad parenting and games is not the games kids play, it's in what kind of environment they play them.
Just stay around while they play games and explain when the need arises. But give them some freedom to experience and discover important life lessons for themselves. Giving them some freedom to learn this will allow them to get better at recognizing and analyzing situations in the future.
It's a 3 year old kid, so officially she shouldn't be allowed to play. On the other hand, you see that she quickly gets a grasp of what's going on, how her actions affect others, and that you shouldn't do to others what you don't want done to yourself.
Normally, a kid would learn this in a playground over several occasions because there everything is more nuanced. If you shove a kid he might not shove you back out of politeness or fear - but in the game it's very clear: you hit someone, they hit back. Do you like getting hit? No? Then don't hit others.
Am I saying that all kids should be allowed to play all games? No, and definitely not unsupervised. The problem with bad parenting and games is not the games kids play, it's in what kind of environment they play them.
Just stay around while they play games and explain when the need arises. But give them some freedom to experience and discover important life lessons for themselves. Giving them some freedom to learn this will allow them to get better at recognizing and analyzing situations in the future.
Please please please tell me you're joking. You are presenting that as a good, or even acceptable, tool to teach morals and how to treat people?? LOOK AT HER, SHE GETS UPSET. I saw that video last week and was not impressed at all. And the level of violence is quite different in Skyrim that in MW3. If it had been Skyrim that the kid was getting, I would never have posted this. But MW3 is far far more violent at at least two points, if not more.
And I mean seriously, look at her expression from 0:55 to 1:00... seriously guys... this shit is not cool.
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
The ESRB rating system is designed to give parents the information they need to evaluate a computer or video game before making a purchasing decision. The ratings are not meant to recommend which games consumers should buy or rent or to serve as the only basis for choosing a product. Rather, parents should use the ESRB ratings in conjunction with their own tastes and standards and their individual knowledge about what's best for their kids.
ESRB recommends that parents learn about games before making a purchasing decision. Game reviews printed in newspapers and publisher web sites can be excellent sources of information. For rating information, consumers can call the ESRB's toll-free ratings hotline, 1-800-771-3772.
ESRB also urges parents to talk with their children about their favorite games. Playing the games with your children helps stimulate those discussions, and playing games as a family can also be a fun way to spend time together.
So practically they are not pressing this "Law" on shops like game stop, or ebgames, they are pressing them on parents. =\
EDIT: Sorry my bad, The Entertainment Software Rating Board is separate from video game retail shops.
You missed my point there,
bad parenting can happen without the game involved, and good parenting can happen WITH the game involved.
The uber perfect family could all be involved in a deathmatch of modern warfare 3 and they could be the most happy and normal family ever.
In this scenario the parent has to take responsibility, and in the case of buying a violent game that the child wants, be present when he/she plays it, know what your child is doing and what games he/she plays, get involved.
Oh wow, is it almost like training your kids to use a gun so they can respect it? And Parents taking responsibility to make sure kids do not go out with the gun and shoot people while shouting "HEAD SHOT!!"
If it had been Skyrim that the kid was getting, I would never have posted this. But MW3 is far far more violent at at least two points, if not more.
COD3 may very well be worse than Skyrim. However, you just undermined your argument when you stated that, had the game been Skyrim you would have never brought it up. But they're both rated M games.
Which means you are basing your argument off of your own opinion of the difference in what is bad and what is really bad.
That's fine, but there's no way to actually measure it. That's what the ESRB system "tries" to actually measure.
Maybe we should stop allowing all this horrible free speech and ban Andreas for expousing opinions we don't agree with - it's obviously a horrible thing that causes KKK rallies.
COD3 may very well be worse than Skyrim. However, you just undermined your argument when you stated that, had the game been Skyrim you would have never brought it up. But they're both rated M games.
Which means you are basing your argument off of your own opinion of the difference in what is bad and what is really bad.
That's fine, but there's no way to actually measure it. That's what the ESRB system "tries" to actually measure.
I think he brought it up because MW3 has to do with realistic war, rather than dragon borns, skeleton, dragons, clans. Many kids dont understand it you know.
MW3 is almost like a realistic war. So, chances of violence happening from that are higher than Skyrim.
And I mean seriously, look at her expression from 0:55 to 1:00... seriously guys... this shit is not cool.
Well...
"Hello! This is actually my daughter in the video. While I do understand that games and violence out of context can be harmful to a child, we are a family of gamers, and the exposure to some imagery is inevitable (though unfortunate). We do our best to explain things to her and talk about what happens. She was in a moment of spotlight since we kept snickering at her saying "no" to the guy telling her that she had to leave - hence the escalating volume from each response to it - so we let it slide even though she knows better than to talk to people like that, haha. But when the adorably traumatic realization set in that the guards were responding to her "swording" by giving her "boo boos," we did ask her what happened. She just sweetly responded "peoples don't like swords, and we don't want swords on the peoples" and she didn't want to play anymore.
Mainly we play Flash games on Nick Jr.com and old DOS hotseat games with her on a computer we set up in the back of my office. But she did know the Skyrim controls because she likes to run around in the wilderness looking for streams to jump into.
COD3 may very well be worse than Skyrim. However, you just undermined your argument when you stated that, had the game been Skyrim you would have never brought it up. But they're both rated M games.
Which means you are basing your argument off of your own opinion of the difference in what is bad and what is really bad.
That's fine, but there's no way to actually measure it. That's what the ESRB system "tries" to actually measure.
Possibly I undermined it slightly, yes. But we all know there is a difference in the games violence levels, despite their classification. How many ratings does the ESRB have? I think there are only a few, right? Which makes it a very vague system.
Everyone of us here, and the clerk in the store, know the difference between Skyrim and MW3 when it comes to violence levels. See the Makarov dies video above. This is not a case for the ESRB. Gamestop should have THEMSELVES decided that no, we are not going to be distributing this game to ridiculously young kids.
So ya saw a bad parent let their kid get MF. for all ya know the kid didn't like it and stopped playing.
I'm sure more kids die riding a bicycle than playing video games. Worry about that more.
Kids going hungry because they're parents are out of a job. Worry about that.
Kids being neglected or beaten by dirt bag guardians. Worry about that.
Kids being sold as sex slaves. Worry about that.
Kids not getting a good education due to lack of funding and condemning them to a life of poverty to bring upon their own children. Worry about that.
but seriously.. show some solid proof that MF will cause harm to that child and others around him before starting a thread you should know will create anger on polycount. are you expecting everyone to agree with you and start an occupy gamestop movement?
plus.. do you even have kids of your own? If not, please close this thread.
had to fix that for you - amazingly, kids are not these delicate little fragile dolls that must be protected from the world. Parents that treat their kids like that are truly the bad parents but they will probably reap what they sow when their kid is in their 30's and still afraid to move out into the real world.
eld man... what in that post of his proves that she was not affected long term in any way? The video was made two weeks ago. Kid could have had nightmares, anything. But the point is, look at the video during those times. What is happening to her is not ok. Sarcasm does not make it ok.
I think that guy should be ashamed of himself actually. As do many people I'm guessing, considering he had to write that response. I'm not saying he is an unfit father, don't know the guy, but seeing him chuckle as his child is visibly disturbed, certainly does not help his case.
Possibly I undermined it slightly, yes. But we all know there is a difference in the games violence levels, despite their classification. How many ratings does the ESRB have? I think there are only a few, right? Which makes it a very vague system.
All ages, 6+, 10+, 13+, 17+, 18/adults only.
6 10 13 and 17 -- e, e10, t, and m, are the commonly used ones. 18 basically represents a soft ban on the game, since retailers will not stock AO games.
Possibly I undermined it slightly, yes. But we all know there is a difference in the games violence levels, despite their classification. How many ratings does the ESRB have? I think there are only a few, right? Which makes it a very vague system.
Everyone of us here, and the clerk in the store, know the difference between Skyrim and MW3 when it comes to violence levels. See the Makarov dies video above. This is not a case for the ESRB. Gamestop should have THEMSELVES decided that no, we are not going to be distributing this game to ridiculously young kids.
They cant, under no law you can do that. ESRB are just guidelines for them that suggests talking to parents about the game, before they sell it. They assume that parents will do their job in keeping a close eye on kids to see if their behavior has changed after playing a game or they refuse to purchase the game.
If you are blaming them to do so, than blame Best buy, Walmart, Gamework shop, and every other game retail division that ever exists.
Thank god we are not talking about video game markets in Asia, South Asia and their policies.
plus.. do you even have kids of your own? If not, please close this thread.
Oh dear, now we DO have a troll in our midst. What does me having kids and not having kids have anything to do with it? Kids are not adults. There are things kids should be able to see, and things they should not. Period. You are saying that people who have kids have more of a right to express their opinions on what a kid can and cannot be subjected to? Ever met a bad parent? Or some guy who just got some girl pregnant by accident? Why does he have more of a right to say anything? I don't need to have failed to use a condom to have the right to a certain opinion.
I think he brought it up because MW3 has to do with realistic war, rather than dragon borns, skeleton, dragons, clans. Many kids dont understand it you know.
MW3 is almost like a realistic war. So, chances of violence happening from that are higher than Skyrim.
So your word holds more ground than an MIT study that proved absolutely no correlation between violent video games affecting children???
BTW - More video game players, less violent crimes.
hmmmmm.....
Ouch. OK, haven't played Skyrim. Those decapitations are probably more than you would see in your average adult game (maaaaybe) but still less than anything seen in that Makarov video.
I made some other points in my last post directed at you eld, but I see you are not addressing them...
So your word holds more ground than an MIT study that proved absolutely no correlation between violent video games affecting children???
BTW - More video game players, less violent crimes.
hmmmmm.....
This... is not what this topic is about. I do not expect that 8 year old to grab a semi-auto and kill people. This is about kids seeing things that could disturb them, and the fact that nobody seems to give a shit, cause their right would be infringed in some way. God forbid he tries to reinact anything in that Makarov video if he's playing with a friend and thinks it would be super awesome to play fight with that rope and do that awesome thing he saw in a videogame last night...
A. I didn't in my wildest imagination figure I would get a negative reaction.
B. Why the fuck would it cause anger.
It's mostly mild bemusement - people continually argue against something they mistakingly think is corrupting their chidren for thousands of years and are continually proven to be wrong. I'm just glad we've come along far enough where Cliffy B doesn't end up drinking poison hemlock.
that's right, I just compared Cliffy B. to Socrates, wanna fight about it?
also, you brought this up in a game art forum, not a PTA meeting. The fact you're surprised we aren't all gung-ho about censorship is surprising.
Oh dear, now we DO have a troll in our midst. What does me having kids and not having kids have anything to do with it? Kids are not adults. There are things kids should be able to see, and things they should not. Period. You are saying that people who have kids have more of a right to express their opinions on what a kid can and cannot be subjected to? Ever met a bad parent? Or some guy who just got some girl pregnant by accident? Why does he have more of a right to say anything? I don't need to have failed to use a condom to have the right to a certain opinion.
So, you would rather take legal advice from someone who has absolutely no experience with the law in any form?
I would rather take parenting advice from someone I know to be a good parent, than some random opinionated dude on the internet who has never raised children. This to me just seems like common sense.
That doesn't mean simply being a parent grants you infinite parenting knowledge, but more likely than not someone who IS a parent would have more knowledge on the subject than someone who is not.
It's mostly mild bemusement - people continually argue against something they mistakingly think is corrupting their chidren for thousands of years and are continually proven to be wrong. I'm just glad we've come along far enough where Cliffy B doesn't end up drinking poison hemlock.
that's right, I just compared Cliffy B. to Socrates, wanna fight about it?
Hmm... I hate Cliffy B. so I dunno if he's great to bring into this discussion lol :poly142:
Also I'm not talking about corruption here. I'm talking about harm. Different things.
Andreas... with following up on what you said about it potentially having an adverse effect on the child... Couldn't ANYTHING in life be that? Christ I was in 5th grade walking to school with a friend when his dog darted across the road and got ripped in half by a school bus. Happened about 20 feet away from us.
What you are basically saying on the lowest point of this spectrum is that all these kids should be sheltered and kept away from anything that could potentially have any effect on them what so ever. Doesn't that sound a bit silly?
I mean seriously? And saying because you know how to put a condom on so you don't have kids blah blah blah made no fucking sense. Rant that you came out with. WHAT?
This is your opinion that the kid shouldn't be sold the game. That's fine. No one is arguing that but you yourself said the adult was there with the child. NOW it doesn't matter if that adult knows exactly what is in the game or what is not. IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARENT TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS!!! That is all. Is it child abuse to let a child play video games? No fucking way. Is it neglect? No. So stop for a second and think about what you are really mad about here because you have contradicted yourself in this thread already with some violence is ok but the MW3 violence is not.
We get it. You don't like Call of Duty. Still you have not answered the question. "WHAT DID YOU DO IN THAT GAMESTOP? Did you say anything or did you just stand by?
eld man... what in that post of his proves that she was not affected long term in any way? The video was made two weeks ago. Kid could have had nightmares, anything. But the point is, look at the video during those times. What is happening to her is not ok. Sarcasm does not make it ok.
I think that guy should be ashamed of himself actually. As do many people I'm guessing, considering he had to write that response. I'm not saying he is an unfit father, don't know the guy, but seeing him chuckle as his child is visibly disturbed, certainly does not help his case.
I've been through that, have had many younger siblings, have seen some scary shit when I was small, and I had nightmares, all kids will have nightmares, can you believe that?
But as the parent can assure you of, she is perfectly fine and happy after that.
Here's a post from kotaku on the article of that video, on how you can explain and teach kids rather than trying to protect them from everything that they'll eventually come to learn and experience. Great post and an involved and caring parent:
It's funny that this was posted because I've been playing Skyrim around my 5 and 2.5 year olds and many similar situations have occurred, especially the 5 year old as they watch (yes, I ask her opinion on some of the choices my character makes. She really enjoys back seat driving while I play and I enjoy her input and company. It's often unintentionally hilarious like the video.).
Now I can't lie: "Yes" I do feel a little squimish and guilty playing the more "Mature" titles around my kids but I've found that it leads to some very interesting and informative talks. Most importantly, to me anyways, is by doing so my children are getting a firm grasp that games are just that, "games", and real life is something entirely different with REAL consequences. I do the same with other media such as movies and cartoons.
So while I agree (from personal experience) that the knee jerk reaction of outrage is only natural it's unfounded. I say it's being a good parent in the long run and opening up critical thinking and dialogue with your kids.
PS - My latest Skyrim/kids experience was having to explain what an Execution was to the 5 year old. It started kinda shaky at first and I could see she was perplexed by it but by the end she was watching videos about the French Revolution on YouTube and asking me questions about that as well. It also linked in her head to an old episode of Tom and Jerry where Tom literally got beheaded at the end. I could see the Light Bulb go off in her head like "Ohhhh! That makes sense now!". It turned out pretty cool and she wasn't traumatized at all.
To balance the equation, you would have to go with someone who is equally a massive twat. So I'm going to go with Peter Molyneux.
So now you are calling out Cliff and Peter Molyneux. Great...should be a really fun experience working with a guy like you. You seem like a great person to be calling out dudes you don't know anything about besides what you see or read online.
Fantastic...
Sure Cliff is over the top but fuck it if I had the chance to take his place I wouldn't turn it down in a second. Seriously. We make video games and this guy is famous for it. That is pretty fucking awesome if you ask me.
I would be more concerned with my kids watching Jersey Shore over violent video games any day of the week.
Andreas... with following up on what you said about it potentially having an adverse effect on the child... Couldn't ANYTHING in life be that? Christ I was in 5th grade walking to school with a friend when his dog darted across the road and got ripped in half by a school bus. Happened about 20 feet away from us.
And it was fucked up, right? Affected you? You are recalling it here, so I'm assuming so.
No one could have prevented that.
Gamestop could easily outright refused this game to anyone if they feel a child is going to play it. They could prevent me from buying Mario Galaxy 2 tomorrow if they really wanted.
So now you are calling out Cliff and Peter Molyneux. Great...should be a really fun experience working with a guy like you. You seem like a great person to be calling out dudes you don't know anything about besides what you see or read online.
I would be more concerned with my kids watching Jersey Shore over violent video games any day of the week.
Again with this though! Why is porno and Jersey Shore not acceptable, but MW3 is?? I completely agree with you on your particular points though, Jersey shore is... completely fucking obviously not suitable content for minors :poly136:
Actually I don't think its fit to be consumed by anybody....
We get it. You don't like Call of Duty. Still you have not answered the question. "WHAT DID YOU DO IN THAT GAMESTOP? Did you say anything or did you just stand by?
I actually really enjoyed MW3; probably because I had lowered expectations after MW2's SP. I have every single COD in my steam list apart from 3 and WoW.
I already answered your other question. Yes, I talked with about it with the clerk after they had left and it was my turn in the Q.
And it was fucked up, right? Affected you? You are recalling it here, so I'm assuming so.
No one could have prevented that.
Gamestop could easily outright refuse this game to anyone if they feel a child is going to play it. They could prevent me from buying Mario Galaxy 2 tomorrow if they really wanted.
That should be the parents call, not the company's though.
And it was fucked up, right? Affected you? You are recalling it here, so I'm assuming so.
No one could have prevented that.
Gamestop could easily outright refuse this game to anyone if they feel a child is going to play it. They could prevent me from buying Mario Galaxy 2 tomorrow if they really wanted.
They cant, under no law you can do that. ESRB are just guidelines for them that suggests talking to parents about the game, before they sell it. They assume that parents will do their job in keeping a close eye on kids to see if their behavior has changed after playing a game or they refuse to purchase the game.
If you are blaming them to do so, than blame Best buy, Walmart, Gamework shop, and every other game retail division that ever exists.
Thank god we are not talking about video game markets in Asia, South Asia and their policies.
EDIT: It is kind of funny you are just targeting EBgames / Gamestop for this instead of looking at other retail stores that are doing it.
Someone without a law degree could tell me just as well as a Harvard graduate that burgling someones house is not ok. Some things are just obvious.
Nice deflection, honestly I dont think you're much of an authority on what is "obvious" when virtually everyone here disagrees with what you're saying.
EarthQuake - I Just got back to this thread and did a little research, you are right it is not a law in US but a system to enable parents to make an informed decision. I apologise. I assumed the age rating system was enforceable in US as it is in UK.
Replies
If you can't see the difference between the 9/11 example you provided of kids seeing it on TV (A REAL WORLD EVEN WITH ACTUAL REAL PEOPLE DYING) and a fucking polygon character being beaten, hung, stabbed and ass fucked then you have more issues to worry about. Seriously.
You are nothing more then a troll on these boards. Have hardly contributed to anything other then General Discussion and looking over your profile it is littered with warnings and infractions for trolling so my guess is this is not much more then that.
So it is solely the parents responsibility to know what the fuck they are giving their kids. Just like the fast food arguement. Know what the fuck your kids are eating. Know who their friends are. Know what they watch on tv. Know what they play for games.
Jesus christ be a fucking parent. That is all it takes... You don't need some dipshit at game stop to tell you that hey you shouldn't buy this. Research the god damn thing.
So does the catholic church, what authority do you have to say your opinions are right and theirs aren't? The point is you're making a subjective judgement call and trying to state it as a FACT that this is how it should have been done. Its much more complex than that, sure you can say you disagree with the issue, but it was handled how it should have been handled.
It isn't your job, or the catholic church's job and CERTAINLY NOT some random gamestop clerk's job to parent someone else's kids, that is the important part.
In the UK perhaps, I am not aware of any law in the US that prohibits a child's legal guardian from buying them a video game.
As far as if the kid is allowed to buy the game then no that is totally down to the retailer, But as far as if the kid should be allowed to play the game that is totally up to the parents. It is the same as Alcohol, you cant buy it till you are 21 but you can drink is from the age of 14 with your parents consent and supervision.
Then you are not aware of law. This is not about a video game this is about an age restricted material and on those ground then yes the store is breaking the law plain and simple If this wasnt against the law then they would not have age related stickers to begin with. As far as if the kid should play the game that is another can of worms entirely.
When it comes to a seriously young kid viewing that shit, there is no difference. They are violent acts, whether real or simulated.
Actually if you look over any threads I've started, vast majority are sharing things that are good for this community. I don't post a lot of art, and that is my perrogative. As for any infractions, I can be opinionated, sure. But, feel free to get personal, doesn't really affect me.
Oh and I edited my above post to cover some things you enquired about that I'd like to get your opinion on, as y'know, I can actually discuss things like an adult without starting a pissing contest.
Alright, I may not be aware of the law. Please cite where this is prohibited in US law.
What I could find:
and
source: http://www.out-law.com/page-5810
Again this may be incorrect/outdated, so feel free to cite your sources
Agreed, and that was not my intention at all... I think someone just pissed in Jessee's cornflakes. I don't hold it against the guy.
[ame="
It's a 3 year old kid, so officially she shouldn't be allowed to play. On the other hand, you see that she quickly gets a grasp of what's going on, how her actions affect others, and that you shouldn't do to others what you don't want done to yourself.
Normally, a kid would learn this in a playground over several occasions because there everything is more nuanced. If you shove a kid he might not shove you back out of politeness or fear - but in the game it's very clear: you hit someone, they hit back. Do you like getting hit? No? Then don't hit others.
Am I saying that all kids should be allowed to play all games? No, and definitely not unsupervised. The problem with bad parenting and games is not the games kids play, it's in what kind of environment they play them.
Just stay around while they play games and explain when the need arises. But give them some freedom to experience and discover important life lessons for themselves. Giving them some freedom to learn this will allow them to get better at recognizing and analyzing situations in the future.
Please please please tell me you're joking. You are presenting that as a good, or even acceptable, tool to teach morals and how to treat people?? LOOK AT HER, SHE GETS UPSET. I saw that video last week and was not impressed at all. And the level of violence is quite different in Skyrim that in MW3. If it had been Skyrim that the kid was getting, I would never have posted this. But MW3 is far far more violent at at least two points, if not more.
And I mean seriously, look at her expression from 0:55 to 1:00... seriously guys... this shit is not cool.
Its not actually their policy, I think.
http://www.ebgames.com/Ratings
It is Entertainment Software Rating Board:
So practically they are not pressing this "Law" on shops like game stop, or ebgames, they are pressing them on parents. =\
EDIT: Sorry my bad, The Entertainment Software Rating Board is separate from video game retail shops.
http://www.esrb.org/index-js.jsp
my apologies.
Your views about this are like a penis.
It's ok to have one.
But please do not whip it out in public. And please do not try shoving it down everyone's throat.
But seriously, I doubt theres anything that eld has said thus far that I dont agree with.
Oh wow, is it almost like training your kids to use a gun so they can respect it? And Parents taking responsibility to make sure kids do not go out with the gun and shoot people while shouting "HEAD SHOT!!"
I still dont understand that part.
That is a huge relief :poly136:
COD3 may very well be worse than Skyrim. However, you just undermined your argument when you stated that, had the game been Skyrim you would have never brought it up. But they're both rated M games.
Which means you are basing your argument off of your own opinion of the difference in what is bad and what is really bad.
That's fine, but there's no way to actually measure it. That's what the ESRB system "tries" to actually measure.
I think he brought it up because MW3 has to do with realistic war, rather than dragon borns, skeleton, dragons, clans. Many kids dont understand it you know.
MW3 is almost like a realistic war. So, chances of violence happening from that are higher than Skyrim.
Well...
Traumatized for life..
Possibly I undermined it slightly, yes. But we all know there is a difference in the games violence levels, despite their classification. How many ratings does the ESRB have? I think there are only a few, right? Which makes it a very vague system.
Everyone of us here, and the clerk in the store, know the difference between Skyrim and MW3 when it comes to violence levels. See the Makarov dies video above. This is not a case for the ESRB. Gamestop should have THEMSELVES decided that no, we are not going to be distributing this game to ridiculously young kids.
I'm sure more kids die riding a bicycle than playing video games. Worry about that more.
Kids going hungry because they're parents are out of a job. Worry about that.
Kids being neglected or beaten by dirt bag guardians. Worry about that.
Kids being sold as sex slaves. Worry about that.
Kids not getting a good education due to lack of funding and condemning them to a life of poverty to bring upon their own children. Worry about that.
but seriously.. show some solid proof that MF will cause harm to that child and others around him before starting a thread you should know will create anger on polycount. are you expecting everyone to agree with you and start an occupy gamestop movement?
plus.. do you even have kids of your own? If not, please close this thread.
had to fix that for you - amazingly, kids are not these delicate little fragile dolls that must be protected from the world. Parents that treat their kids like that are truly the bad parents but they will probably reap what they sow when their kid is in their 30's and still afraid to move out into the real world.
I think that guy should be ashamed of himself actually. As do many people I'm guessing, considering he had to write that response. I'm not saying he is an unfit father, don't know the guy, but seeing him chuckle as his child is visibly disturbed, certainly does not help his case.
[ame="
All ages, 6+, 10+, 13+, 17+, 18/adults only.
6 10 13 and 17 -- e, e10, t, and m, are the commonly used ones. 18 basically represents a soft ban on the game, since retailers will not stock AO games.
They cant, under no law you can do that. ESRB are just guidelines for them that suggests talking to parents about the game, before they sell it. They assume that parents will do their job in keeping a close eye on kids to see if their behavior has changed after playing a game or they refuse to purchase the game.
If you are blaming them to do so, than blame Best buy, Walmart, Gamework shop, and every other game retail division that ever exists.
Thank god we are not talking about video game markets in Asia, South Asia and their policies.
A. I didn't in my wildest imagination figure I would get a negative reaction.
B. Why the fuck would it cause anger.
But preowned sales are not ok but it affects US, fuck some random kid, amirite?????
Oh dear, now we DO have a troll in our midst. What does me having kids and not having kids have anything to do with it? Kids are not adults. There are things kids should be able to see, and things they should not. Period. You are saying that people who have kids have more of a right to express their opinions on what a kid can and cannot be subjected to? Ever met a bad parent? Or some guy who just got some girl pregnant by accident? Why does he have more of a right to say anything? I don't need to have failed to use a condom to have the right to a certain opinion.
So your word holds more ground than an MIT study that proved absolutely no correlation between violent video games affecting children???
BTW - More video game players, less violent crimes.
hmmmmm.....
Ouch. OK, haven't played Skyrim. Those decapitations are probably more than you would see in your average adult game (maaaaybe) but still less than anything seen in that Makarov video.
I made some other points in my last post directed at you eld, but I see you are not addressing them...
This... is not what this topic is about. I do not expect that 8 year old to grab a semi-auto and kill people. This is about kids seeing things that could disturb them, and the fact that nobody seems to give a shit, cause their right would be infringed in some way. God forbid he tries to reinact anything in that Makarov video if he's playing with a friend and thinks it would be super awesome to play fight with that rope and do that awesome thing he saw in a videogame last night...
Also to add to this there is
It's mostly mild bemusement - people continually argue against something they mistakingly think is corrupting their chidren for thousands of years and are continually proven to be wrong. I'm just glad we've come along far enough where Cliffy B doesn't end up drinking poison hemlock.
that's right, I just compared Cliffy B. to Socrates, wanna fight about it?
also, you brought this up in a game art forum, not a PTA meeting. The fact you're surprised we aren't all gung-ho about censorship is surprising.
So, you would rather take legal advice from someone who has absolutely no experience with the law in any form?
I would rather take parenting advice from someone I know to be a good parent, than some random opinionated dude on the internet who has never raised children. This to me just seems like common sense.
That doesn't mean simply being a parent grants you infinite parenting knowledge, but more likely than not someone who IS a parent would have more knowledge on the subject than someone who is not.
Someone without a law degree could tell me just as well as a Harvard graduate that burgling someones house is not ok. Some things are just obvious.
Hmm... I hate Cliffy B. so I dunno if he's great to bring into this discussion lol :poly142:
Also I'm not talking about corruption here. I'm talking about harm. Different things.
I was just saying that; for the sake of discussion, one should pick video game titles that can be compared to real life events.
What you are basically saying on the lowest point of this spectrum is that all these kids should be sheltered and kept away from anything that could potentially have any effect on them what so ever. Doesn't that sound a bit silly?
I mean seriously? And saying because you know how to put a condom on so you don't have kids blah blah blah made no fucking sense. Rant that you came out with. WHAT?
This is your opinion that the kid shouldn't be sold the game. That's fine. No one is arguing that but you yourself said the adult was there with the child. NOW it doesn't matter if that adult knows exactly what is in the game or what is not. IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARENT TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS!!! That is all. Is it child abuse to let a child play video games? No fucking way. Is it neglect? No. So stop for a second and think about what you are really mad about here because you have contradicted yourself in this thread already with some violence is ok but the MW3 violence is not.
We get it. You don't like Call of Duty. Still you have not answered the question. "WHAT DID YOU DO IN THAT GAMESTOP? Did you say anything or did you just stand by?
I've been through that, have had many younger siblings, have seen some scary shit when I was small, and I had nightmares, all kids will have nightmares, can you believe that?
But as the parent can assure you of, she is perfectly fine and happy after that.
Here's a post from kotaku on the article of that video, on how you can explain and teach kids rather than trying to protect them from everything that they'll eventually come to learn and experience. Great post and an involved and caring parent:
So now you are calling out Cliff and Peter Molyneux. Great...should be a really fun experience working with a guy like you. You seem like a great person to be calling out dudes you don't know anything about besides what you see or read online.
Fantastic...
Sure Cliff is over the top but fuck it if I had the chance to take his place I wouldn't turn it down in a second. Seriously. We make video games and this guy is famous for it. That is pretty fucking awesome if you ask me.
I would be more concerned with my kids watching Jersey Shore over violent video games any day of the week.
And it was fucked up, right? Affected you? You are recalling it here, so I'm assuming so.
No one could have prevented that.
Gamestop could easily outright refused this game to anyone if they feel a child is going to play it. They could prevent me from buying Mario Galaxy 2 tomorrow if they really wanted.
Don't take it serious ;P
Again with this though! Why is porno and Jersey Shore not acceptable, but MW3 is?? I completely agree with you on your particular points though, Jersey shore is... completely fucking obviously not suitable content for minors :poly136:
Actually I don't think its fit to be consumed by anybody....
I actually really enjoyed MW3; probably because I had lowered expectations after MW2's SP. I have every single COD in my steam list apart from 3 and WoW.
I already answered your other question. Yes, I talked with about it with the clerk after they had left and it was my turn in the Q.
That should be the parents call, not the company's though.
EDIT: It is kind of funny you are just targeting EBgames / Gamestop for this instead of looking at other retail stores that are doing it.
Nice deflection, honestly I dont think you're much of an authority on what is "obvious" when virtually everyone here disagrees with what you're saying.
what is wrong with you