Before you ask-NO I am not in favor of restricting minors (kids) from playing violent video games.

2 days ago I took a reading test for one of my college classes and what I had to do was annotate the article, write out answers to questions of the article, and much more. BTW the class is English Composition.

But the article I did the reading test on was about a time when California attempted to pass a law that would restrict minors from playing violent video games. Long story short the article contains both sides of the argument: Supporters of the law say it's the same as restricting children from accessing pornography, tobacco, alcohol, and real weapons. The opposition of the law argued that it violates the 1st amendment and is unconstitutional.

So I thought this would be an interesting topic to go over and see what you guys have to say about the subject of the topic (not the reading test that I took, the subject of minors with violent video games) I can tell that almost all of you- if not ALL of you, will despise laws like this. What reasons do you have for not liking something like this to happen?

And I'll say it again: I'm not in favor of taking away rights from people.

-_- there is an ESRB age rating in plain sight on the games case. maybe if parents or other legal guardians would start paying attention when buying games for kids this kind of problem wouldn't come up quite as much. of course, theres also probably some parents who simply don't care about age ratings.

i highly doubt a law is needed when we already have the age rating system. people just need to stop ignoring it and getting they're kids whatever they want.

edit: as far as Call of Duty goes, take a look on youtube sometime. it's ridiculous how many little kids (so many videos of little kids who go around saying racist remarks or profanity constantly getting trolled.)) are allowed to play games that are clearly rated M (for Mature) or higher.

It's like no one bothers to read the giant letters ont he front of games or something.

This is redundant and stupid

What happens in Europe with PEGI ratings (or at least, what I think happens) is that the age of the purchaser must not be less than the age rating on the box. That sounds pretty sound, as it should generally be up to a parent or guardian what a minor consumes, and it won't make too much of a difference anyway as parents normally buy the games and minors usually wouldn't be able to afford them.

Doesn't matter if it will get restricted or not. Here in Holland (and undoubtedly elsewhere), it frequently occurs that friended adults (or any trespasser willing to comply) buy 16-18+ games for them. Same goes for alcoholic beverages and tobacco.

HotUnderTheCollar said:
Doesn't matter if it will get restricted or not. Here in Holland (and undoubtedly elsewhere), it frequently occurs that friended adults (or any trespasser willing to comply) buy 16-18+ games for them. Same goes for alcoholic beverages and tobacco.

Dunno about elsewhere but in the US it's not even illegal for kids to buy M-rated games. Retailers just prefer not to sell them to minors. Gives them a good image.

As for whether kids should play these games, this is something that has to be judged on a case-by-case basis for both the child and the game. ESRB ratings are totally arbitrary sometimes. I think it's ridiculous that Halo (a little bit more violent than Star Wars) and Grand Theft Auto V (you are forced to brutally torture someone) carry the same rating.

Fenrick said:
As for whether kids should play these games, this is something that has to be judged on a case-by-case basis for both the child and the game. ESRB ratings are totally arbitrary sometimes. I think it's ridiculous that Halo (a little bit more violent than Star Wars) and Grand Theft Auto V (you are forced to brutally torture someone) carry the same rating.

It largely depends on the severity of the violence in the game. I would say shooters like Call of Duty, Battlefield and the likes are perfectly fine, whereas seriously disturbing, gory or scary games like Cry of Fear (still amazing game experience-wise though) should be treated as unsuited for them.

I've seen children as young as five years old playing Grand Theft Auto games and their parents were perfectly fine with it.

Greatly depends on the level and type of violence displayed.

There are games aimed at an adult audience, and those should stay restricted to that audience.

However, unlike Tobacco, weapons, and alcohol, the negative effects of violent games are minor at best. For tobacco you have the problem that it the resulting lack of oxygen and increase in risk of cancer can cause a huge plethora of issues on a developing child, the same way how alcohol greatly inhibits the growth of the brain. As for weapons it's probably simply because of the lack of training and responsibility. Kid with a gun showing off his new gun? It's almost guaranteed that you have potentially fatal accidents happening.

NotMeNotYou said:
Unlike Tobacco, weapons, and alcohol, the negative effects of violent games are minor at best.

Multiple studies have shown that there exists no correlation between videogames and violence, while gaming can instead improve certain human aspects such as precision and reaction time. There's basically no violent downside to it. Addiction at best.

level of violence doesn't matter

how violent a child is is determined before they are exposed to a game

NotMeNotYou said:
As for weapons it's probably simply because of the lack of training and responsibility. Kid with a gun showing off his new gun? It's almost guaranteed that you have potentially fatal accidents happening.

or as some might say, lack of respect for the weapon. which is really stupid imo since respecting a weapon has absolutely nothing to do with safety as opposed to proper training/skill/knowledge/etc..

treos said:
or as some might say, lack of respect for the weapon. which is really stupid imo since respecting a weapon has absolutely nothing to do with safety as opposed to proper training/skill/knowledge/etc..

I'm glad weapons are illicit for all people but law enforcement in my country. They bring nothing but crime and armed guttersnipes. Even as fascinated as I am with guns, I would feel uncomfortable possessing an object capable of easily laying a body flat.

Video games are just like movies. Kids have been watching violent/scary/gory movies for ages and they turned out fine. Video games are an art, so I think they should be available to everyone. If anyone needs to be restritced from viloent video games, it's the kids with the predisposition for violence/mental ilness.

I wonder what those 12-year-olds that play Call of Duty would migrate towards playing if they were unable to play that game.

GameManiac said:
I wonder what those 12-year-olds that play Call of Duty would migrate towards playing if they were unable to play that game.

Medal of Honor
/me hides

Ahri_The_Pure_Slut said:
Video games are just like movies. Kids have been watching violent/scary/gory movies for ages and they turned out fine. Video games are an art, so I think they should be available to everyone. If anyone needs to be restritced from viloent video games, it's the kids with the predisposition for violence/mental ilness.

true, video games are something of an art form at this point but much like other art forms and movies we DO still have the age restriction ratings for a reason (be that a legal reason or something else).

kinda makes me wonder sometimes though...were it not for the legal reasons is the age restriction here completely necessary? i mean,as far as sex goes it's not like kids wouldn't learn about it somewhere at some point anyway. but then again, theres likely good arguments to keep it regardless as well.

GameManiac said:
I wonder what those 12-year-olds that play Call of Duty would migrate towards playing if they were unable to play that game.

i wonder if that happening would spell business trouble for the guys at the trollarch youtube channel.

Oh and another thing there was something I heard about some people thinking that the age rating referred to difficulty as opposed to content, which is pretty strange. In addition, I don't know what the ESRB do, but PEGI have little pictures on the back of the box signifying content (eg violence, bad language etc), but they aren't signified very well as they don't indicate severity of said content.

ElctrcBoogalord said:
What reasons do you have for not liking something like this to happen?

because its fucking stupid

end of story

/thread

Kaeetayel said:
Oh and another thing there was something I heard about some people thinking that the age rating referred to difficulty as opposed to content, which is pretty strange. In addition, I don't know what the ESRB do, but PEGI have little pictures on the back of the box signifying content (eg violence, bad language etc), but they aren't signified very well as they don't indicate severity of said content.

what the ESRB use is a letter system (E for everyone, G for general audience iirc, M for mature, and AO for adults only games but that last one doesn't appear that often in stores. did i miss any?) as see here for example. the little label in the lower left corner is what the ESRB use.

treos said:
what the ESRB use is a letter system (E for everyone, G for general audience iirc, M for mature, and AO for adults only games but that last one doesn't appear that often in stores. did i miss any?) as see here for example. the little label in the lower left corner is what the ESRB use.

dont forget to mention on the back of the box there's the same symbol but it's more specific what type of content the game has

mvpm8 said:
dont forget to mention on the back of the box there's the same symbol but it's more specific what type of content the game has

oh yeah, forgot that one. here is a pic with both the front and back labels.