The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We’ve had the issue of censorship raised on these boards more than once. In nearly every instance people have said that they actually don’t take any notice of the age rating that has been put on a game.
Now, I’m not going to go into what I believe about the censorship issue, because that’s not what I’m talking about. I’ll save that for another time.
However, what I am going to rant about is the way adults (mostly) defend censorship.
How many times have the younger people here heard the phrase "But it’s rated 18…" I’ve heard it many times, but I can always argue my way out of things like that. Anyway, it’s all fine and good for adults to try and protect their children but what really gets on my pecks is the way in which they defend it.
I totally accept that I’m still young and may be impressionable and that my parents are only trying to protect me. That’s fine, I have no problem with that. But if they’re trying to protect and shield me away from violence and general horror then why oh why do they let me watch the news? Why do they let me read adult books? Why do they let me read the newspaper?! All of these forms of media contain stories of violence, murder, rape and general nastiness from one human being to another.
I read a book called Stone Cold, it’s about how this mad ex-army person decided to clear the "riffraff layabouts out of this country" by that, he meant kill all the homeless people in and around London. It’s a vile concept and the book goes into disgusting detail on the status of the "recruits" as the mad guy puts it.
Is reading that kind of material really any worse for me than playing Max Payne? They both depict gore, violence and overall bad stuff but do my parents mind me reading Stone Cold? No, do they mind me playing Max Payne? Yes.When I ask them why I can read books like To Kill a Mocking Bird but can’t play Max Payne they reply that Max Payne actually shows me these things in picture form. To that I say "bollards" I’m a 13 year old, whatever my imagination can conjure up when presented with details is far far worse than what a game can show me. On the whole it’s probably safer for me to play violent gams than it is for me to read violent books. Yet my parents still condone me playing Max Payne.
OK then, what about the news? On September the 11th my local news station showed the poor people in the World Trade Centre jumping out of the windows to their death. They actually showed it. And I didn’t want to watch. But my parents didn’t mind me watching; they do mind me playing Grand Theft Auto 3 though. The scenes I saw on September the 11th are worse than anything in GTA3. Yet my parents still encourage me to watch the news, but discourage me from playing GTA3. That day, the news showed worse images than any game could ever create. Yet I’m still allowed to watch it.
And then we have newspapers. Recently, there was a story run about the Americans releasing images and videos taken from the cameras strapped to bombs. There was one video that showed not only 2 vans full of people being blown up, but the bomb actually hit a man, dead on, and blew him to pieces. The paper showed three pictures taken from that video. One of the man being targeted, one of the bomb hitting him and one of him being blown apart. I was shocked to see these pictures in a newspaper. After all, it’s adults that write for newspapers and yet it’s adults that complain about the damaging effect that video games may have. It’s adults that complain about the kinds of things that are being put into games. Damn Dirty Hypocrites!
If they want to shield children from horror then the first thing they have to do is remove all violence from the media. But what would that leave newspapers and the news to report on? Nothing. Exactly. So why do people still complain about horror in games? If mankind can sort itself out enough to rid violence from the media, then maybe I will listen to complaints about violence in games but until that happens, I’m still going to carry on playing GTA3, Max Payne and Perfect Dark no matter what complaints I hear.
RBS
Now, I’m not going to go into what I believe about the censorship issue, because that’s not what I’m talking about. I’ll save that for another time.
However, what I am going to rant about is the way adults (mostly) defend censorship.
How many times have the younger people here heard the phrase "But it’s rated 18…" I’ve heard it many times, but I can always argue my way out of things like that. Anyway, it’s all fine and good for adults to try and protect their children but what really gets on my pecks is the way in which they defend it.
I totally accept that I’m still young and may be impressionable and that my parents are only trying to protect me. That’s fine, I have no problem with that. But if they’re trying to protect and shield me away from violence and general horror then why oh why do they let me watch the news? Why do they let me read adult books? Why do they let me read the newspaper?! All of these forms of media contain stories of violence, murder, rape and general nastiness from one human being to another.
I read a book called Stone Cold, it’s about how this mad ex-army person decided to clear the "riffraff layabouts out of this country" by that, he meant kill all the homeless people in and around London. It’s a vile concept and the book goes into disgusting detail on the status of the "recruits" as the mad guy puts it.
Is reading that kind of material really any worse for me than playing Max Payne? They both depict gore, violence and overall bad stuff but do my parents mind me reading Stone Cold? No, do they mind me playing Max Payne? Yes.When I ask them why I can read books like To Kill a Mocking Bird but can’t play Max Payne they reply that Max Payne actually shows me these things in picture form. To that I say "bollards" I’m a 13 year old, whatever my imagination can conjure up when presented with details is far far worse than what a game can show me. On the whole it’s probably safer for me to play violent gams than it is for me to read violent books. Yet my parents still condone me playing Max Payne.
OK then, what about the news? On September the 11th my local news station showed the poor people in the World Trade Centre jumping out of the windows to their death. They actually showed it. And I didn’t want to watch. But my parents didn’t mind me watching; they do mind me playing Grand Theft Auto 3 though. The scenes I saw on September the 11th are worse than anything in GTA3. Yet my parents still encourage me to watch the news, but discourage me from playing GTA3. That day, the news showed worse images than any game could ever create. Yet I’m still allowed to watch it.
And then we have newspapers. Recently, there was a story run about the Americans releasing images and videos taken from the cameras strapped to bombs. There was one video that showed not only 2 vans full of people being blown up, but the bomb actually hit a man, dead on, and blew him to pieces. The paper showed three pictures taken from that video. One of the man being targeted, one of the bomb hitting him and one of him being blown apart. I was shocked to see these pictures in a newspaper. After all, it’s adults that write for newspapers and yet it’s adults that complain about the damaging effect that video games may have. It’s adults that complain about the kinds of things that are being put into games. Damn Dirty Hypocrites!
If they want to shield children from horror then the first thing they have to do is remove all violence from the media. But what would that leave newspapers and the news to report on? Nothing. Exactly. So why do people still complain about horror in games? If mankind can sort itself out enough to rid violence from the media, then maybe I will listen to complaints about violence in games but until that happens, I’m still going to carry on playing GTA3, Max Payne and Perfect Dark no matter what complaints I hear.
RBS
Page:
Sorry about this but who is the old notable then? I lknow there is one who's like 30-40 or something like that... But if it isn't Grix then who?!?
PS, sorry I will stop talking about age now...
PS, sorry I will stop talking about age now...
Your Honour wrote:
>But some people seem to think that we can't tell the
> difference, so age restrictions are brought in.
The fact is that parents
> don't like to think that their little John is the one pulling the trigger in the
> game and killing people.
I can see why age restrictions exist, I wouldn't want 5 year olds watching Texas Chainsaw Massacre or something, but I think the censors (who we don't vote for, and, dammit, I don't even know who these people are!) should credit the general public with more intelligence.
You are right though, it is probably the fact that games have an "interactive" element that parents dissaprove.
>But some people seem to think that we can't tell the
> difference, so age restrictions are brought in.
The fact is that parents
> don't like to think that their little John is the one pulling the trigger in the
> game and killing people.
I can see why age restrictions exist, I wouldn't want 5 year olds watching Texas Chainsaw Massacre or something, but I think the censors (who we don't vote for, and, dammit, I don't even know who these people are!) should credit the general public with more intelligence.
You are right though, it is probably the fact that games have an "interactive" element that parents dissaprove.
funkygamer wrote:
When YOU play a game, YOU
> say "this is a role I am taking on, I am going to play this persona for the
> duration of the game".
I am not Mario, I am not Sonic, I am not Ms
> Croft, I am not any of the characters in Quake or Doom or Unreal, but I often
> pretend to be them.
Surely there is a difference in there somewhere?
Fair point. Bit if that were true, then we wouldn't need age restrictions on anything. You wouldn't need them on flims because everyonr would be able to tell that it wasn't real.
But some people seem to think that we can't tell the difference, so age restrictions are brought in.
The fact is that parents don't like to think that their little John is the one pulling the trigger in the game and killing people.
When YOU play a game, YOU
> say "this is a role I am taking on, I am going to play this persona for the
> duration of the game".
I am not Mario, I am not Sonic, I am not Ms
> Croft, I am not any of the characters in Quake or Doom or Unreal, but I often
> pretend to be them.
Surely there is a difference in there somewhere?
Fair point. Bit if that were true, then we wouldn't need age restrictions on anything. You wouldn't need them on flims because everyonr would be able to tell that it wasn't real.
But some people seem to think that we can't tell the difference, so age restrictions are brought in.
The fact is that parents don't like to think that their little John is the one pulling the trigger in the game and killing people.
Your Honour wrote:
>The main reason why parents
> differentiate between reading about violence and playing a game with violence in
> it is thus: In the game YOU are in control, YOU can choose whether to kill the
> person, YOU pull the trigger.
I disagree.
When YOU play a game, YOU are playing a part, YOU are wrapping yourself in a persona. It is a bit like acting I suppose.
Do you see Arnie, or Stallone or Bruce Willis actually go out to kill and maim people because they did it on screen?
When YOU play a game, YOU say "this is a role I am taking on, I am going to play this persona for the duration of the game".
I am not Mario, I am not Sonic, I am not Ms Croft, I am not any of the characters in Quake or Doom or Unreal, but I often pretend to be them.
Surely there is a difference in there somewhere?
>The main reason why parents
> differentiate between reading about violence and playing a game with violence in
> it is thus: In the game YOU are in control, YOU can choose whether to kill the
> person, YOU pull the trigger.
I disagree.
When YOU play a game, YOU are playing a part, YOU are wrapping yourself in a persona. It is a bit like acting I suppose.
Do you see Arnie, or Stallone or Bruce Willis actually go out to kill and maim people because they did it on screen?
When YOU play a game, YOU say "this is a role I am taking on, I am going to play this persona for the duration of the game".
I am not Mario, I am not Sonic, I am not Ms Croft, I am not any of the characters in Quake or Doom or Unreal, but I often pretend to be them.
Surely there is a difference in there somewhere?
I was going to say all that stuff about how in games you want to kill people while in the news you're disgusted by it (you know, the moral idea behind it etc.)
So instead I'll rant about another hypocracy in age ratings.
Remember those shootings a while back, the ones which the parents tried to sue the games industry for?
Well part of the evidence against the industry was that as a 10 year old, he used to play Doom a lot.
Now isn't Doom a red certificate 15 game?
Didn't it say on that big PC box that this game was unsuitable for people under the age of 15?
It wasn't the industries fault that the parents supplied their child with unsuitable material, let alone train the kids with a gun.
You see, letting your kids play violent immoral games is a risky business. You have no idea how it'll affect them.
I was never allowed beat em ups when I was young. It was only when I got an N64 2 and a half years ago when my mum and dad began to give in.
And even then they had serious reservations about Goldeneye, WWF games and any other violent games.
I didn't dare show them Conkers Bad Fur Day! :-D
So instead I'll rant about another hypocracy in age ratings.
Remember those shootings a while back, the ones which the parents tried to sue the games industry for?
Well part of the evidence against the industry was that as a 10 year old, he used to play Doom a lot.
Now isn't Doom a red certificate 15 game?
Didn't it say on that big PC box that this game was unsuitable for people under the age of 15?
It wasn't the industries fault that the parents supplied their child with unsuitable material, let alone train the kids with a gun.
You see, letting your kids play violent immoral games is a risky business. You have no idea how it'll affect them.
I was never allowed beat em ups when I was young. It was only when I got an N64 2 and a half years ago when my mum and dad began to give in.
And even then they had serious reservations about Goldeneye, WWF games and any other violent games.
I didn't dare show them Conkers Bad Fur Day! :-D
Getting the thread back on track....
The main reason why parents differentiate between reading about violence and playing a game with violence in it is thus: In the game YOU are in control, YOU can choose whether to kill the person, YOU pull the trigger.
This is not so in a book.
In a book, or a film, it is someone else doing the killing, maiming, raping etc. It is their choice, they have to live with the consequences.
That is why adults don't mind people reading books/seeing stuff on the news, but don't want you to play a computer game.
It's as simple as that.
The main reason why parents differentiate between reading about violence and playing a game with violence in it is thus: In the game YOU are in control, YOU can choose whether to kill the person, YOU pull the trigger.
This is not so in a book.
In a book, or a film, it is someone else doing the killing, maiming, raping etc. It is their choice, they have to live with the consequences.
That is why adults don't mind people reading books/seeing stuff on the news, but don't want you to play a computer game.
It's as simple as that.
Sibs wrote:
> I agree with you on that RBS. In truth, anything we do in a videogame that is
> considered 'bad' as it's violent or whatever, has in reality been done, and
> likely things hundreds of times worse been done as well. Why not censor life?
>
PS. you are only 13!?!
I imagined all Notables as in their late teens
> with fluffy beards. (except Grix... I imagine him much older than that)
;-)
You know, not all 13/14 year olds are dumb, stupid and annoying. Just look at me and RBS. {:)
> I agree with you on that RBS. In truth, anything we do in a videogame that is
> considered 'bad' as it's violent or whatever, has in reality been done, and
> likely things hundreds of times worse been done as well. Why not censor life?
>
PS. you are only 13!?!
I imagined all Notables as in their late teens
> with fluffy beards. (except Grix... I imagine him much older than that)
;-)
You know, not all 13/14 year olds are dumb, stupid and annoying. Just look at me and RBS. {:)
RastaBillySkank wrote:
>Is reading that kind of material really any worse for me than
> playing Max Payne? They both depict gore, violence and overall bad stuff but do
> my parents mind me reading Stone Cold? No, do they mind me playing Max Payne?
> Yes.When I ask them why I can read books like To Kill a Mocking Bird but can’t
> play Max Payne they reply that Max Payne actually shows me these things in
> picture form. To that I say "bollards" I’m a 13 year old, whatever my
> imagination can conjure up when presented with details is far far worse than
> what a game can show me.
Good points RBS. Surely the whole point of a book is that the reader conjours up an image of the stuff that is going on in the book, in their mind. Isn't that why we always hear "ohh, I read the book and it was better than the film?" Of course it was, the book is limited only by how *you* picture something happening, when you watch a film, a certain viewpoint is forced upon you.
I have to say, The Beach and Harry Potter movies are nowhere near as good as the books.
>Is reading that kind of material really any worse for me than
> playing Max Payne? They both depict gore, violence and overall bad stuff but do
> my parents mind me reading Stone Cold? No, do they mind me playing Max Payne?
> Yes.When I ask them why I can read books like To Kill a Mocking Bird but can’t
> play Max Payne they reply that Max Payne actually shows me these things in
> picture form. To that I say "bollards" I’m a 13 year old, whatever my
> imagination can conjure up when presented with details is far far worse than
> what a game can show me.
Good points RBS. Surely the whole point of a book is that the reader conjours up an image of the stuff that is going on in the book, in their mind. Isn't that why we always hear "ohh, I read the book and it was better than the film?" Of course it was, the book is limited only by how *you* picture something happening, when you watch a film, a certain viewpoint is forced upon you.
I have to say, The Beach and Harry Potter movies are nowhere near as good as the books.
Grix Thraves wrote:
> Sibs wrote:
"(older than 20's anyhow)"
Ah, come on! Be brave, I
> don't care... how old, come on, a number. :0)
Arghhh... I am the victim of vicious rumours abou Grix being old... it wasn't me... it was... Edwin 25 (yeah blame it all on him, he's banned anyhow)... he said you were very very old... and misinformed me... yes, that's right... he said you were... 35... but I don't think you look a day over... umm... 17... yeah, that's right.
*Sibs sighs in relief and mumbles something inaudible about Grix...*
;-)
> Sibs wrote:
"(older than 20's anyhow)"
Ah, come on! Be brave, I
> don't care... how old, come on, a number. :0)
Arghhh... I am the victim of vicious rumours abou Grix being old... it wasn't me... it was... Edwin 25 (yeah blame it all on him, he's banned anyhow)... he said you were very very old... and misinformed me... yes, that's right... he said you were... 35... but I don't think you look a day over... umm... 17... yeah, that's right.
*Sibs sighs in relief and mumbles something inaudible about Grix...*
;-)
As for age ratings well its about blokes like bin laden well not really bin laden but like him nutters who mimick what they see. If Bin Laden played a game though where he was himself killing americans would he need to destroy the world trade centre?
Well?
Does Video games present an alternative to real violence?
Who knows?
Well?
Does Video games present an alternative to real violence?
Who knows?
Page: