Should violent video games be banned?

Should violent video games be banned?

Yes	3.2%	[ 3 ]
No	96.8%	[ 91 ]
Total Votes:			[ 94 ]

[Crawfish Prime]

gothicgummybear

Sparkyperson

Ansel Pendragon

Sparkyperson

Ansel Pendragon

Sparkyperson

And theres my problem right there. I don't feel violent games should be banned, but age restrictions need to be followed through.

I feel immoral that anyone under the age of 10 should have any access to that kind of violence. Why the hell would you need it then? Thats the growing up "Lol, lets go play outside" age. Soon as you hit 10, medium violence seems fair, soon as your 14, no amount of violence seems immoral.

Age restriction is more of the parents job, isn't it? Or is the job of being a parent and actually watching over the kids so hard and so complicated that cooperations need to do it for them?

Your completley ignoring my point. I'm not for Overprotective Parents, i'm against kids playing overly violent games before they have any need to.

Theres just no need for Halo, GTA and the likes that early. There's no peer pressure at that age (and if there is, that only more proves my point), and no real need for high levels of violence that early. Tekken or Mortal Kombat style violence at that age is fine, but MGS and GTA style violence is out of the question.

Your ignorant to my point as well. I am not saying its right or wrong because it is not my kid we are taking about (not that I have one) I am saying it is up to the parents. Not you, not the government, just the parents.

Your as bad as the parents who feel violent games equals all gamers are violent.

Your pointlessly targeting a small minority of parents who are either too stupid or dont care about their children enough to check the age restrictions.

What do you mean "small" minority? Parents often assume that all video games are for kids and completely ignore, or are ignorant of, the rating system. Also, because most parents believe that their kids are special, wonderful children, they assume that they are mature enough to handle the images that they will see whilst playing said games. Children are malleable, and must be treated as such. Of course, it is the parent's job to determine when their children are mature enough, but many are blind.

To you and Ansel Pendragon, there is no clear way i can argue my point so that you can understand in a way that isn't reportable......so i'll submit.

Your right, even though i don't agree with you in the slightest.

[Di3S3L]

There are 2 sides to Halo, the campaign side, and the online multiplayer side.

Tha campaign side of Halo is magnificent, like a storybook, or a comic whos heroes rival superman himself. It's great to watch, not much different from a good movie. You can let your kids play this, as long as they know why MC has to shoot. It's like the knight and the dragon, so his fair maiden isn't eaten, he must SLAY the dragon. Now isn't that quite violent? the children's books are often accompanied with illustrations of a dragon either beheaded or impaled. So as long as there's guidance, Violent stories are no different than cartoons.

The online multiplayer side of Halo opens up a whole new can of worms. Since it's a mix amongst well mannered and foul-mouthed people, you will find that a child of 4 will tend to abuse violence and swearing, discarding his values when exposed to online play early than when he's only playing through single or 2 player offline campaign. This is because the child is amongst peers. We, the gaming community will differ from each other, we're not all douchebags. But I don't deny that there are those that exist only to trashtalk and demoralize other gamers. Over competitive players who will talk trash just to annoy and distract others from enjoying their game.

Most of the time these are the same 2 sides of most games I see with violence in them. There is a motive, a reason for the violence in campaign mode, whilst the online multiplayer mode is just chock full with violent, ill mouthed people.

[m00tz]

Ansel Pendragon

m00tz

Ansel Pendragon

m00tz

Ansel Pendragon

dukey03

I don't understand why people think violent video games should be banned. If you banned video games, then you'd have to ban movies as well. I mean what makes Manhunt worse than Saw or Hostel? They have an 18+ rating so kids wont be playing them legally.

EXACTLY! It has gotten to the point that people tried to sue Bill Gates and get him in trouble for the guy who loved playing Tom Clancy games on the X-Box and shot all those people at Virginia Tech. Seriously people, in that situation don't shoot the messenger. Bill Gates didn't make the game or concept for it, Tom Clancy did.

But he marketed the game.

To a MATURE audience. Thank you for bringing that up.

So?

Bill Gates didn't make the game or concept for it, Tom Clancy did.

Has to do with nothing why he was targeted

No body blames Schoolastic, the distributer of Harry Potter, for all the kids who broke their arms because they jumped off of the roof of a house with a broom, they blame J.K. Rowling. So, by you believing that Bill Gates should be blamed for releasing the game, do you think Schoolastic should be blamed for releasing Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling is innocent?

AH, but then comes in the keep thing for when people are attacking for that "money"

Not disagreeing with you at all that it's BS. But then you could blame the inventor of cigarettes rather then the companies that make them. Just kinda messing with based on your choices, sorry if you took offense.

[Ansel Pendragon]

m00tz

Ansel Pendragon

m00tz

Ansel Pendragon

m00tz

But he marketed the game.

To a MATURE audience. Thank you for bringing that up.

So?

Bill Gates didn't make the game or concept for it, Tom Clancy did.

Has to do with nothing why he was targeted

No body blames Schoolastic, the distributer of Harry Potter, for all the kids who broke their arms because they jumped off of the roof of a house with a broom, they blame J.K. Rowling. So, by you believing that Bill Gates should be blamed for releasing the game, do you think Schoolastic should be blamed for releasing Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling is innocent?

AH, but then comes in the keep thing for when people are attacking for that "money"

Not disagreeing with you at all that it's BS. But then you could blame the inventor of cigarettes rather then the companies that make them. Just kinda messing with based on your choices, sorry if you took offense.

Non-at-all actually. I just find it funny where people put blame, ya know?

[Di3S3L]

Blame the media, once people who don't know anything about games see that they can be as violent as crimes committed on the news, the shock often sends them pointing fingers at the wrong people before they learn anything about anything. And for that I also partially blame the ignorant masses. Someone has taken the value of education and labeled it as just another prerequisite to get a job and pay for things.

[z5555s5s5s5]

Banning video game violence is never the solution. You can't stick your head in the ground like an ostrich. Parents should be responsible for the games their children play sometimes. If the game has fantasy violence, then there should be no problem. If the violence is realistic, then the parents should be weary.

As for the virginia tech thing... those people died because someone wimped out and pulled the trigger. It wasn't the video game company's fault, it was the people who pulled the trigger. I think parents should be accustomed to the game consoles their children play on, and be familiar with the games they play. That way, they can do their job better as parents.

People only commit school shootings for one reason... their wimps, it's as plain as day. They belong spending their days in lockers. I know it sounds stupid, but I'm getting tired of people blaming their crimes on others... And to me, that kind of thinking only proves your weak...

[m00tz]

Ansel Pendragon

m00tz

Ansel Pendragon

m00tz

Ansel Pendragon

m00tz

But he marketed the game.

To a MATURE audience. Thank you for bringing that up.

So?

Bill Gates didn't make the game or concept for it, Tom Clancy did.

Has to do with nothing why he was targeted

No body blames Schoolastic, the distributer of Harry Potter, for all the kids who broke their arms because they jumped off of the roof of a house with a broom, they blame J.K. Rowling. So, by you believing that Bill Gates should be blamed for releasing the game, do you think Schoolastic should be blamed for releasing Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling is innocent?

AH, but then comes in the keep thing for when people are attacking for that "money"

Not disagreeing with you at all that it's BS. But then you could blame the inventor of cigarettes rather then the companies that make them. Just kinda messing with based on your choices, sorry if you took offense.

Non-at-all actually. I just find it funny where people put blame, ya know?

Yea, waiting for someone to but the blame on muffins then I know things are really screwed up then lol

[wesley of the stone age]

no they shouldnt but i say there should be a place to veiw content in stores on a tv or pc type systems

[Ansel Pendragon]

Di3S3L

Blame the media, once people who don't know anything about games see that they can be as violent as crimes committed on the news, the shock often sends them pointing fingers at the wrong people before they learn anything about anything. And for that I also partially blame the ignorant masses. Someone has taken the value of education and labeled it as just another prerequisite to get a job and pay for things.

*complementary high-five* Media sucks and tries to put fear in everyone's heart. What ever happened to the "good" news in news? Like Water Skiing Squirrels and little dogs that save men or women from a fire?

[gothicgummybear]

Sparkyperson

soilder of raze

kawaiikokeshi

Well...I wouldn't really say ban them from the world.

But I suppose that there should be action taken to the fact that some games that are very unapropriate for minors are still sitting on the shelves of major stores where many children visit (Wal-Mart, ToysRUs, etc.)

Movies are also a great concern.

I played GTA and other violent games since i was 6 and i am fine and the parent has to get the game for the kid so there is no reason to ban it from toys r us if the parent is ok with the kid playing it.

And theres my problem right there. I don't feel violent games should be banned, but age restrictions need to be followed through.

I feel immoral that anyone under the age of 10 should have any access to that kind of violence. Why the hell would you need it then? Thats the growing up "Lol, lets go play outside" age. Soon as you hit 10, medium violence seems fair, soon as your 14, no amount of violence seems immoral.

Okay, if you're still reading this, I shall start from the beginning. I personally don't have a problem with age restrictions. (though I did get a little pissed when I couldn't buy an M rated game (Rule of Rose) when I was 17 because the state of Washington raised the age limit to 18, when I know that I've been mature enough to play M rated games since I was at least 15) I don't think that 10 year olds, etc. should be playing violent video games. However, it isn't about enforcing laws at this point, because most video game stores do check ID and won't sell M rated games to a young person. The issue is with the parents. It is WAY too far for the government to go to say that it is illegal for a parent to buy an M rated game for their under age child, but the parents should take more responsibility and actually pay attention to the games they're buying for their kids.

You speak of immorality. I do not believe that it is immoral, per se, for a child to be exposed to violent games. I do, however, think it is a bad idea, because a lot of the children who are exposed to them are also not taught how to deal with the images they see. This is from a psychological standpoint, not a moral one. I don't want to have to deal with immature, obnoxious idiots for the rest of my life, simply because their parents were too oblivious to set limits for their children.

I do, however, think it is immoral for the government to get involved beyond the point of sales. Once the game is purchased by a person of legal age, it is no longer within the government's jurisdiction.

[Ansel Pendragon]

m00tz

Ansel Pendragon

m00tz

Ansel Pendragon

m00tz

So?

Bill Gates didn't make the game or concept for it, Tom Clancy did.

Has to do with nothing why he was targeted

No body blames Schoolastic, the distributer of Harry Potter, for all the kids who broke their arms because they jumped off of the roof of a house with a broom, they blame J.K. Rowling. So, by you believing that Bill Gates should be blamed for releasing the game, do you think Schoolastic should be blamed for releasing Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling is innocent?

AH, but then comes in the keep thing for when people are attacking for that "money"

Not disagreeing with you at all that it's BS. But then you could blame the inventor of cigarettes rather then the companies that make them. Just kinda messing with based on your choices, sorry if you took offense.

Non-at-all actually. I just find it funny where people put blame, ya know?

Yea, waiting for someone to but the blame on muffins then I know things are really screwed up then lol

Fat people from Mc. Donalds one upped that. XDD Mc. Donalds never told them to eat there everyday nor gave any hint to how healthy their food is or not. They just said eat if you are hungry. and so people did, and then some.

[Crawfish Prime]

Di3S3L

Blame the media, once people who don't know anything about games see that they can be as violent as crimes committed on the news, the shock often sends them pointing fingers at the wrong people before they learn anything about anything. And for that I also partially blame the ignorant masses. Someone has taken the value of education and labeled it as just another prerequisite to get a job and pay for things.

Nah, i blame it on the secret organization, whether it be media or government that try to link any violent acts, especially those done by students, to violent video games.

As soon as they do that, they know they've hit two birds with one stone.

1. They've hit Video games for more damge, making their "Playing outside and studying is better" argument stronger to the overprotective parents

2. They take the lazy way out blaming it on Violent games, instead of admiting that the whole thing could of probably been avoided if people stopped treating the soon-to-be-killer (or in this case, the now-a-killer) like s**t and got him the much needed mental help he needed.

[Ansel Pendragon]

cyborgmanx

Banning video game violence is never the solution. You can't stick your head in the ground like an ostrich. Parents should be responsible for the games their children play sometimes. If the game has fantasy violence, then there should be no problem. If the violence is realistic, then the parents should be weary.

As for the virginia tech thing... those people died because someone wimped out and pulled the trigger. It wasn't the video game company's fault, it was the people who pulled the trigger. I think parents should be accustomed to the game consoles their children play on, and be familiar with the games they play. That way, they can do their job better as parents.

People only commit school shootings for one reason... their wimps, it's as plain as day. They belong spending their days in lockers. I know it sounds stupid, but I'm getting tired of people blaming their crimes on others... And to me, that kind of thinking only proves your weak...

*complimentary High Five* Like I said, I find it funny where people put the blame. "Its not my fault for buying the game for my kid, its your fault for creating it" mentality needs to die.

[Crawfish Prime]

gothicgummybear

Sparkyperson

soilder of raze

kawaiikokeshi

Well...I wouldn't really say ban them from the world.

But I suppose that there should be action taken to the fact that some games that are very unapropriate for minors are still sitting on the shelves of major stores where many children visit (Wal-Mart, ToysRUs, etc.)

Movies are also a great concern.

I played GTA and other violent games since i was 6 and i am fine and the parent has to get the game for the kid so there is no reason to ban it from toys r us if the parent is ok with the kid playing it.

And theres my problem right there. I don't feel violent games should be banned, but age restrictions need to be followed through.

I feel immoral that anyone under the age of 10 should have any access to that kind of violence. Why the hell would you need it then? Thats the growing up "Lol, lets go play outside" age. Soon as you hit 10, medium violence seems fair, soon as your 14, no amount of violence seems immoral.

Okay, if you're still reading this, I shall start from the beginning. I personally don't have a problem with age restrictions. (though I did get a little pissed when I couldn't buy an M rated game (Rule of Rose) when I was 17 because the state of Washington raised the age limit to 18, when I know that I've been mature enough to play M rated games since I was at least 15) I don't think that 10 year olds, etc. should be playing violent video games. However, it isn't about enforcing laws at this point, because most video game stores do check ID and won't sell M rated games to a young person. The issue is with the parents. It is WAY too far for the government to go to say that it is illegal for a parent to buy an M rated game for their under age child, but the parents should take more responsibility and actually pay attention to the games they're buying for their kids.

You speak of immorality. I do not believe that it is immoral, per se, for a child to be exposed to violent games. I do, however, think it is a bad idea, because a lot of the children who are exposed to them are also not taught how to deal with the images they see. This is from a psychological standpoint, not a moral one. I don't want to have to deal with immature, obnoxious idiots for the rest of my life, simply because their parents were too oblivious to set limits for their children.

I do, however, think it is immoral for the government to get involved beyond the point of sales. Once the game is purchased by a person of legal age, it is no longer within the government's jurisdiction.

Lol, i probably should of just said "If the people selling it clearly warned adults of its age restriction and level of violence, that'd be perfectly fine". Thats really the point i was trying to make in which its not 100% parental fault. 95% probably, but not 100%.

[z5555s5s5s5]

I think if schools actually made their students read something educational instead of proverbial crap, then they would be better off. If schools made the students read some self help books in english class for example, and practiced communication skills.

The problem is, that the students read garbage now a days. And I'm sorry, but making them read something like romeo and juliet is not gonna make them a better person. I hated that play with a passion... If schools focused more on the good, then the bad... then video game "induced" crimes would be far less...

Also, I think mandetory cat scans would be excellent too for students... and maybe a professional shrink for a counceller...