The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2419007.stm
BBC/Daily Mail/Stupid People begin to worry about whether GTA:Vice City will encourage violence amongst children.
Must be a slow news day.
How come nobody asks us? Because we'd laugh and walk away is why.
Altogether now kids:
Video games are evil, they warp my mind. I want to kill everyone because I played a computer game.
Here's what really makes me sick:
Stupid Parent "Grand Theft Auto will make my child evil!"
Normal Person "Take responsibility for teaching your child right and wrong then"
Stupid Parent "Little Timmy played it and he's going to worship Satan and rape people and snort drugs, I just know it"
Normal Person "Raise your child correctly then, spend time with Timmy. Stop expecting teachers to raise your children and you dump them in front of video games and tv with burgers"
Stupid Parent "But evil videogames baaaaah! Baaaaah! Baaaaaah!"
Normal Person "Why weren't you concerned when you let them go trick or treating by themselves. At night, alone? Why are you so worried about a game?"
Stupid Person "Because the paper says to be! Baaaah! Baaaah! Baaaaah!"
BBC/Daily Mail/Stupid People begin to worry about whether GTA:Vice City will encourage violence amongst children.
Must be a slow news day.
How come nobody asks us? Because we'd laugh and walk away is why.
Altogether now kids:
Video games are evil, they warp my mind. I want to kill everyone because I played a computer game.
Here's what really makes me sick:
Stupid Parent "Grand Theft Auto will make my child evil!"
Normal Person "Take responsibility for teaching your child right and wrong then"
Stupid Parent "Little Timmy played it and he's going to worship Satan and rape people and snort drugs, I just know it"
Normal Person "Raise your child correctly then, spend time with Timmy. Stop expecting teachers to raise your children and you dump them in front of video games and tv with burgers"
Stupid Parent "But evil videogames baaaaah! Baaaaah! Baaaaaah!"
Normal Person "Why weren't you concerned when you let them go trick or treating by themselves. At night, alone? Why are you so worried about a game?"
Stupid Person "Because the paper says to be! Baaaah! Baaaah! Baaaaah!"
Page:
Arwen Undomiel wrote:
> I remember watching Pretty Woman when I was about 12.... and I think
> it's an eighteen..... (Its a 15) But I'm not a prostitue now..... so I cant see
> how video games/film/tv programmes etc etc can do that.
Thats not the same at all. By watching a film you don't take on the role of the person you are watching, you don't control their actions. Their is no sense of owning thoses actions
> What I cant believe are films like Toy Soldiers, being a U rating, and
> Lord of the Rings being a PG. I think that is bad....... but I dont
> think the kids watching them will go out and start killing people over
> it etc etc.
You just said that you "can't see how films can do that", then here you are saying "I think that is bad" when you talk about the rating of these two films. what is it that you think is so bad about the ratings of these films?
> I remember watching Pretty Woman when I was about 12.... and I think
> it's an eighteen..... (Its a 15) But I'm not a prostitue now..... so I cant see
> how video games/film/tv programmes etc etc can do that.
Thats not the same at all. By watching a film you don't take on the role of the person you are watching, you don't control their actions. Their is no sense of owning thoses actions
> What I cant believe are films like Toy Soldiers, being a U rating, and
> Lord of the Rings being a PG. I think that is bad....... but I dont
> think the kids watching them will go out and start killing people over
> it etc etc.
You just said that you "can't see how films can do that", then here you are saying "I think that is bad" when you talk about the rating of these two films. what is it that you think is so bad about the ratings of these films?
Rosalind wrote:
> Don't you think that it is MORE of a risk to young children than to
> adults?
To kids not old enough to gather the required funds themselves, yes. And again, if parents buy violnece-ridden games for 6 year olds, it is the parenting at fault.
> Don't you think that it is MORE of a risk to young children than to
> adults?
To kids not old enough to gather the required funds themselves, yes. And again, if parents buy violnece-ridden games for 6 year olds, it is the parenting at fault.
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> But then, how many responsible parents would buy it for their child if
> it's rated 18?
All the one's who don't believe that games are dangerous, hence my insistence that they come with a bold and obvious health warning.
> But then, how many responsible parents would buy it for their child if
> it's rated 18?
All the one's who don't believe that games are dangerous, hence my insistence that they come with a bold and obvious health warning.
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Not really, no. By having a Rated 18 sticker on the front, it says
> 'this game is not suitable for you'. And if you play it while
> underage and are suddenly turned into a chainsaw wielding lunatic,
> then it's your own fault, because you're not supposed to be doing it.
> It's like giving a 10 year old kid alcohol, and then complaining when
> they get drunk and start feeling up ladies.
I disagree. Why isn't it suited for a 17 year old? Because it has blood and violence? I would suggest that people such as down on their luck university students are more at risk of being adversely affected by violent games than someone breezing through their A-levels or GNVQ. Depression brought about by pressure, poverty, and the demand to succeed for your parents "pride" can leave people mentally vulnerable.
Rather than an 18 tag, they would be better off saying "no infants, no students, do not play if having a bad day, if you've just been dumped or made redundant, or if a relative has passed recently away."
> Personally, I'm glad they didn't dumb down Vice City, or censor it in
> anyway, because I'm an adult, over 18, and I don't need anyone to
> protect me. And your comment that the game has no substance is wrong,
> it has substance in abundance - most people I know are still playing
> GTA3, not because you get to hurt people, but because the game is so
> much fun. Assuming that everyone plays the game just because you get
> to kill hookers and run over policemen is an irrational
> generalisation.
Whatever. I played GTA3, and it is on my experience of playing it that I label it so. That and that the people I know who own it still send mails around about the destruction they caused the night before, and whenever they play it when I'm around seem to randomly attack things with the cheats set on for all weapons, and spout a continuous stream of hilarious, high pitched laughter.
Personally, I think that's unhealthy.
> Not really, no. By having a Rated 18 sticker on the front, it says
> 'this game is not suitable for you'. And if you play it while
> underage and are suddenly turned into a chainsaw wielding lunatic,
> then it's your own fault, because you're not supposed to be doing it.
> It's like giving a 10 year old kid alcohol, and then complaining when
> they get drunk and start feeling up ladies.
I disagree. Why isn't it suited for a 17 year old? Because it has blood and violence? I would suggest that people such as down on their luck university students are more at risk of being adversely affected by violent games than someone breezing through their A-levels or GNVQ. Depression brought about by pressure, poverty, and the demand to succeed for your parents "pride" can leave people mentally vulnerable.
Rather than an 18 tag, they would be better off saying "no infants, no students, do not play if having a bad day, if you've just been dumped or made redundant, or if a relative has passed recently away."
> Personally, I'm glad they didn't dumb down Vice City, or censor it in
> anyway, because I'm an adult, over 18, and I don't need anyone to
> protect me. And your comment that the game has no substance is wrong,
> it has substance in abundance - most people I know are still playing
> GTA3, not because you get to hurt people, but because the game is so
> much fun. Assuming that everyone plays the game just because you get
> to kill hookers and run over policemen is an irrational
> generalisation.
Whatever. I played GTA3, and it is on my experience of playing it that I label it so. That and that the people I know who own it still send mails around about the destruction they caused the night before, and whenever they play it when I'm around seem to randomly attack things with the cheats set on for all weapons, and spout a continuous stream of hilarious, high pitched laughter.
Personally, I think that's unhealthy.
I know this is a little different but along the same lines....
I remember watching Pretty Woman when I was about 12.... and I think it's an eighteen..... But I'm not a prostitue now..... so I cant see how video games/film/tv programmes etc etc can do that.
What I cant believe are films like Toy Soldiers, being a U rating, and Lord of the Rings being a PG. I think that is bad....... but I dont think the kids watching them will go out and start killing people over it etc etc.
I remember watching Pretty Woman when I was about 12.... and I think it's an eighteen..... But I'm not a prostitue now..... so I cant see how video games/film/tv programmes etc etc can do that.
What I cant believe are films like Toy Soldiers, being a U rating, and Lord of the Rings being a PG. I think that is bad....... but I dont think the kids watching them will go out and start killing people over it etc etc.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> How many parents will buy Vice City for their child when 40% of the
> cover art for the box is covered by a government mental health
> warning?
But then, how many responsible parents would buy it for their child if it's rated 18?
> How many parents will buy Vice City for their child when 40% of the
> cover art for the box is covered by a government mental health
> warning?
But then, how many responsible parents would buy it for their child if it's rated 18?
Insane Bartender wrote:
> And I wouldn't suggest that people be denied games on the basis that a
> minority of people are too weak-willed to resist the changes in them
> that games can suppose. But people do need to recognise that ther IS a
> danger, at ANY age.
Don't you think that it is MORE of a risk to young children than to adults?
> And I wouldn't suggest that people be denied games on the basis that a
> minority of people are too weak-willed to resist the changes in them
> that games can suppose. But people do need to recognise that ther IS a
> danger, at ANY age.
Don't you think that it is MORE of a risk to young children than to adults?
Again, I say age has amost nothing to do with it. With something like alcohol or cigarettes, where you do need to be "mature" enough to make the correct decision (in which case the legal age for smoking should be closer to 21), but with games, you just need to be able to play it without it changing you - and without you knowing it.
And I wouldn't suggest that people be denied games on the basis that a minority of people are too weak-willed to resist the changes in them that games can suppose. But people do need to recognise that ther IS a danger, at ANY age. The only way to action that is to push it in everyone's face with an unmissable reminder.
How many parents will buy Vice City for their child when 40% of the cover art for the box is covered by a government mental health warning?
And I wouldn't suggest that people be denied games on the basis that a minority of people are too weak-willed to resist the changes in them that games can suppose. But people do need to recognise that ther IS a danger, at ANY age. The only way to action that is to push it in everyone's face with an unmissable reminder.
How many parents will buy Vice City for their child when 40% of the cover art for the box is covered by a government mental health warning?
phi11ip wrote:
> It's right though, how can they moan about kids being influenced by
> this game when it's rated 18?
Realistically, this isn't going to stop kids getting it. Parents will still buy these sorts of games. This would be fine by me, as long as the parents waving pitchforks are not the same ones buying the game for their kids.
But of course they are.
As several people have said, the kids are the responsiblity of the parents. You can't blame others for what your kid does.
> It's right though, how can they moan about kids being influenced by
> this game when it's rated 18?
Realistically, this isn't going to stop kids getting it. Parents will still buy these sorts of games. This would be fine by me, as long as the parents waving pitchforks are not the same ones buying the game for their kids.
But of course they are.
As several people have said, the kids are the responsiblity of the parents. You can't blame others for what your kid does.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> slapping an "18" tag on a game will achieve nothing.
> Firstly, it's well known that it doesn't prevent under 18s from
> getting the game, and secondly, it makes the massively flawed
> assumption that it is age that determines someone's strength of
> character.
>
> Completely ludicrous.
Not really, no. By having a Rated 18 sticker on the front, it says 'this game is not suitable for you'. And if you play it while underage and are suddenly turned into a chainsaw wielding lunatic, then it's your own fault, because you're not supposed to be doing it. It's like giving a 10 year old kid alcohol, and then complaining when they get drunk and start feeling up ladies.
Personally, I'm glad they didn't dumb down Vice City, or censor it in anyway, because I'm an adult, over 18, and I don't need anyone to protect me. And your comment that the game has no substance is wrong, it has substance in abundance - most people I know are still playing GTA3, not because you get to hurt people, but because the game is so much fun. Assuming that everyone plays the game just because you get to kill hookers and run over policemen is an irrational generalisation.
> slapping an "18" tag on a game will achieve nothing.
> Firstly, it's well known that it doesn't prevent under 18s from
> getting the game, and secondly, it makes the massively flawed
> assumption that it is age that determines someone's strength of
> character.
>
> Completely ludicrous.
Not really, no. By having a Rated 18 sticker on the front, it says 'this game is not suitable for you'. And if you play it while underage and are suddenly turned into a chainsaw wielding lunatic, then it's your own fault, because you're not supposed to be doing it. It's like giving a 10 year old kid alcohol, and then complaining when they get drunk and start feeling up ladies.
Personally, I'm glad they didn't dumb down Vice City, or censor it in anyway, because I'm an adult, over 18, and I don't need anyone to protect me. And your comment that the game has no substance is wrong, it has substance in abundance - most people I know are still playing GTA3, not because you get to hurt people, but because the game is so much fun. Assuming that everyone plays the game just because you get to kill hookers and run over policemen is an irrational generalisation.
Page: