Maybe I misunderstood...jbourrieDecember 12 2005, 17:24:24 UTC
"While we applaud the parents' efforts to ensure no alcohol, drugs, guns, or tobacco are present at teen parties, the games issue is troubling"
I'm not sure I agree with this. Why is it troubling? Parents can censor whatever they like in the context of children that they are responsible, as long as legislation doesn't do it to everyone. Whether or not we think games actually cause violence, I applaud these parents for taking it into their own hands instead of blaming the game industry.
Re: Maybe I misunderstood...gamepoliticsDecember 12 2005, 18:11:35 UTC
My concerns are twofold:
1.) as others have mentioned, lumping games with obviously negative, unhealthy things like drugs, booze, tobacco and guns... there is an assumption at work there that violent games are unhealthy
2.) as someone else said, what kids, what games? Do I want my nine-year-old at a party where GTA is being played? No... Do I care if my 16-year-old is at a Halo 2 fragfest? No...
I see this as pseudo-censorship; a parents group - or members of that group - driving home THEIR view of this issue. It's not the same as a parent deciding what their own kid plays. It's a group defining what can be played, without having either a clear definition or a a clear basis to do that.
Re: Maybe I misunderstood...jbourrieDecember 12 2005, 18:20:22 UTC
But they are deciding what can be played in their own house. It is censorship, but it is not government-mandated censorship. Parent A makes a pledge that kids won't play GTA at their house, Parent B now will let little Timmy go and play there. It's really just an issue of parents not knowing what their kids are doing at their friends house. This program isn't being forced on anyone, is it
( ... )
Re: Maybe I misunderstood...jabrwockDecember 12 2005, 21:08:14 UTC
I guess his concern is more that the parents are just issuing a "blanket" statement ("our house is free of violent games") without going into any details, which means that one's parent's standards of what constitutes a "violent" game may be different from anothers'. Are they going by rating? Are they just using lists like NIMF's, which lists Halo2 as being worse than Manhunt? Are they actually sitting down and playing these games, compiling their own list of the worst offenders? Are they not allowing all violent games, or just those that made the news?
If parent A says their house is "violent-games-free", what does that mean? Can they play MarioKart? What if parent B thinks MK or Pacman is violent? What if parent A think Manhunt is violent, but not Halo2?
How does parent B know how strict or how lenient parent A is with their interpretation of what "violent" means?
Regulated vs unregulatednightwng2000December 12 2005, 17:26:01 UTC
(1) Tobacco, Alcohol, and even guns in some places, are regulated by age limitation by the government (all or most levels). In these cases, many would give arguements along the same line as video games
( ... )
Re: Regulated vs unregulatedjbourrieDecember 12 2005, 18:09:11 UTC
Seriously, if a person turns their nose up at you because you don't think games make you evil, do you really want to be friends with that person anyway? I'd say good riddance to snobby rubbish.
Re: Regulated vs unregulatedcatch_33December 12 2005, 18:17:45 UTC
While it really isn't a bad thing to have such a pledge between parents of "like-mindedness", I am somewhat concerned for those who openly choose not to sign. Are those individuals ostracized because they do not sign? Are they condemned by the public or treated with disrespect or even talked about behind their backs with rumor and inuendo and accusations? That is more what I'm concerned about.
I'd really hate to see that kind of thing spread like wildfire. I don't want communities torn apart because of something so trivial.
Of course, though such a pledge has less "umph" than a general Home Owners Association list of rules for a community, I am concerned that others will attempt to move such a pledge into the list of rules for a community governed by a Home Owners Association. Many such Associations are given free reign on what to restrict and not restrict.
Associations suck anyway. Anyone who lives in one and does nothing but complain is an idiot in my book.
inappropiate groupingevilfish28December 12 2005, 17:44:59 UTC
I am going to agree with everyone else that it is a little extreme to place Video Games in the same category as guns, underage drinking, drugs and tobacco (though other people *cough*Jackie*cough* may not agree with me). I applaud parents' involvement in keeping kids safe, but I feel that they should increase focus on the things that are truely harmful, like peer pressure, drugs and alochol.
What defines "violent"? It's too broad a term. My mother likes the Street Fighter series and the Capcom vs. SNK series (which I am really into), but at the same time hates the Mortal Kombat Series. The main difference, despite similar fighting mechanics, being the blood and fatalities. I believe that practically every game (except Animal Crossing, Nintendogs) has some sort of violence in it, whether it is simple, cartoon slapstick or internal organs being dismembered.
This is stupid...
anonymous
December 12 2005, 17:57:38 UTC
Not only are points of view on violence different, but what are the kids supposed to do?
The other items obviously can physically harm the children, but violent games? Restricting them is more likely to cause harm than not. It's better they blow stuff up in a game, than get bored and leave the house to do it for real.
I could understand games like GTA. Maybe they should be more specific and say no M-rated games, rather than no violent games...
Heh, I should probably stop reading GamePolitics. It just ends up making me pissed off at society... ;)
Comments 57
I'm not sure I agree with this. Why is it troubling? Parents can censor whatever they like in the context of children that they are responsible, as long as legislation doesn't do it to everyone. Whether or not we think games actually cause violence, I applaud these parents for taking it into their own hands instead of blaming the game industry.
Reply
1.) as others have mentioned, lumping games with obviously negative, unhealthy things like drugs, booze, tobacco and guns... there is an assumption at work there that violent games are unhealthy
2.) as someone else said, what kids, what games? Do I want my nine-year-old at a party where GTA is being played? No... Do I care if my 16-year-old is at a Halo 2 fragfest? No...
I see this as pseudo-censorship; a parents group - or members of that group - driving home THEIR view of this issue. It's not the same as a parent deciding what their own kid plays. It's a group defining what can be played, without having either a clear definition or a a clear basis to do that.
Reply
Reply
If parent A says their house is "violent-games-free", what does that mean? Can they play MarioKart? What if parent B thinks MK or Pacman is violent? What if parent A think Manhunt is violent, but not Halo2?
How does parent B know how strict or how lenient parent A is with their interpretation of what "violent" means?
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'd really hate to see that kind of thing spread like wildfire. I don't want communities torn apart because of something so trivial.
Of course, though such a pledge has less "umph" than a general Home Owners Association list of rules for a community, I am concerned that others will attempt to move such a pledge into the list of rules for a community governed by a Home Owners Association. Many such Associations are given free reign on what to restrict and not restrict.
Associations suck anyway. Anyone who lives in one and does nothing but complain is an idiot in my book.
Reply
What defines "violent"? It's too broad a term. My mother likes the Street Fighter series and the Capcom vs. SNK series (which I am really into), but at the same time hates the Mortal Kombat Series. The main difference, despite similar fighting mechanics, being the blood and fatalities. I believe that practically every game (except Animal Crossing, Nintendogs) has some sort of violence in it, whether it is simple, cartoon slapstick or internal organs being dismembered.
Reply
The other items obviously can physically harm the children, but violent games? Restricting them is more likely to cause harm than not. It's better they blow stuff up in a game, than get bored and leave the house to do it for real.
I could understand games like GTA. Maybe they should be more specific and say no M-rated games, rather than no violent games...
Heh, I should probably stop reading GamePolitics. It just ends up making me pissed off at society... ;)
Reply
Noooooooooooooooo.....
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment