What happened next shocked me completely. Till chap says to hovering lady person "I'll need you to be at the till for the transaction, as both of these games are rated 15". Woman looks down at little 8 year old, back at till bloke and shuffles forward.
Transaction goes through. 8 year old successfully purchases 2 15 rated games and goes off to play them, mother in tow.
In ten year's time, after this kid has hacked twelve people to death with a machete before killing himself by boring parker pens into his eyes, they will blame the video games.
Not the crappy parents. Not the guy in Game who knew he was selling games to someone too young to own them, but didn't care as long as he covered his own a**e. Genius.
I know videogames have changed from the days I was playing 19. GTA with it's little polygon bullets and weird looking cars, Duke Nukem and it's feeble attempt to bring sex into the next gen shooter. Compared to what is out there today they are tame.
Agreed, the internet is a decent place to get games underage. I bought several and everybody is none the wiser, some games my parents still don't know I have and I'm nearly 20.
But I now believe that the BBFC are getting lapse in their classification. Mass effect for example - moderate violence, swearing with lesbian and straight sex scenes and it only gets a 12 rating. Blue Dragon hints at quite a bit of swearing contains fantasy violence and some scary scenes and it is unclassified by the BBFC. All it gets is a PEGI 12+.
I'm for the certificates, but I think parents should be educated on what they mean as I got fed up with the number of people saying "well my son is bright, I'm sure he can figure it out" just as much as when people go "I don't want that game because it will be too easy" on a PEGI 3+ game.
It's an easily influenced ueber-minority who are committing said crimes because of games; same with those Black Metal fans in Norway some years ago. It's a parent's responsibility I'd guess; would it be a bad idea to let their kids play GTA/Manhunt titles, do they know about the content? But then, there are only very few who can fail to tell the difference between real and pretend violence; as Vaz or Liebermann (Yes, politicos from both sides of the Atlantic!) don't seem to understand.
I know my dad didn't have a problem with me playing GTA2 when I was 12, as I can tell the difference between real and fake violence, and of course GTA's have become more "realistic" since. Shooting a load of polygons is a good release of anger, rage etc anyway.
apparently, throwing red turtle shells at other cars is not in the highway code either?????
I think that the mentality of a person who will commit crimes does not do this just because they have seen it on a game. I think they could use these games as sick and twisted ideas. Video games are so popular because they are what they are, a virtual world you can immerse yourself in. You could be the best in the world at Tiger Woods on the Playstation but not able to hit a golf ball to save your life.
What I'm trying to point out is that games (at the moment) are so far from real life that to make a link between say a murder and a computer games influence is absurd. You can't blame a developer for making a 'made up game' that has someone been pinpointed as the reason the person committed the crime.
There was talk around the 9/11 plane crashes that this was inspired by the Grand Theft Auto series. This to me is just someone trying to push the issue onto an industry that has never supported such crimes. Video games are supposed to take people into a 'virtual reality'. 99.9% of people will never think of killing someone after playing a video game.
I believe that age restrictions on games are a good thing to a certain extent but to be honest if a kid really wants a game that badly, he will get it. The internet is one way. I played games that were of a restriction I shouldn't have played. I'm not out committing crimes etc. It really does boil down to the mentality of the person behind the game, not the game itself.
I even like the idea of detailing what sort of material is in the game, like VHS did, they has a column stating whether things like violence, sex were moderate or frequent. This is a great idea and could help parents out when choosing whether to let there child play a certain game.
Well that's my view on things anyways.
However, the law states that it is illegal to supply to persons under the age limit but not to someone else that is over that age that will supply it.
In the end I used discretion. Say if two teens came in and tried to buy an 18 and one was and the other clearly wasn't (the one who wasn't who instigated the sale), I wouldn't sell, even if one could prove the age. However, I left it at the parent's discretion.
BUT! If it was a parent buying the game I clearly stated that the game contained whatever it contained (carjacking, prostitution, sex, drugs, guns, beheading, gambling, poor graphics to name a few), as many parents believe that the age restriction tells the buyer how hard the game is (yes, some people ARE that stupid... somehow the certificates they judge film content with is completely different to the SAME DESIGN on a game. 99% of them won't buy it after you tell them.
I do believe in the system, but in the end it was my job on the line - told what I felt was right and then passed the responisibility nto the parents. If the parents buy it the kids will get hold of it, thats a sad fact. If you refuse to sell it one day, there is no saying they'll not be back in a few hours buying it straight from another employee/store.
I apologise if I have created the next Hannibal Lecter. But did all I could without being attacked in the style of a murder in a videogame.
> In ten year's time, after this kid has hacked twelve people to
> death with a machete before killing himself by boring parker
> pens into his eyes, they will blame the video games.
If its any consolation to you, i blame hitler's mother, not the video games he was playing.
> This might sound a bit weird but hear me out
> Is there any actual evidence that a game that's rated as a age
> above the child using it can actually -damage- the child?
> I've always seen it as a very individual thing.. but still - is
> there any proof it's dangerous?
> It's easy to say 'they're there for a reason' but what's the
> And yes I'm serious
If you dont distinguish between TV and games (I do because of the interactivity) then yeah, Bandura and his behaviourist mob did a huge ammount of studies on TV violence and it's influence on kids. In the short-term it did make them more violent.
Personally i think it's an individual thing but that they still shouldnt be playing those type of games, even if the effects are only short-term.
As for links to murderers etc. It'll never be proved because i think you have to be fairly damaged in the first place and no study is going to find a 100-1000 damaged children and test whether you can turn them into psychopaths. I dont think it's a stretch though to say that taking someone not fully connected to reality or morality and giving them an alternative to those things would be a bad idea.