Published on 6th April 2008 by
Originally Posted by TokaI am unable to express myself in an articulate fashion, with any sort of clarity, over this issue of proposed censorship of my recreational pursuits. I'll limit myself to the following.
Fu*k off and buy some parenting skills you miserable excuse for responsible adults. If you allow your child to experience unsuitable material, or are unaware of the material they are experiencing, then please hand your kids over to social services and come back when your IQ has struggled over 50.
Originally Posted by Paradigm ShifterHm. Sounds to me like irresponsible parents and incompetent politicians are to blame... and it's obvious that neither of those groups will actually admit to it being their fault, because it's easier to blame it on something that can't fight back.
(Music and movies have big Associations backing them, who have a lot of money... computer gaming is too small and fragmented, and doesn't have the cash to keep top-flight lawyers on retainer to fight idiots who want a scapegoat. As much as it pains me to admit it, computer gaming almost needs a "CGAA", a gaming equivalent of the RIAA or MPAA, to lobby politicians etc...)
Originally Posted by JoeymacYou're kidding right? You've not heard of Microsoft or Sony? Plus I believe the games industry rakes in more dough than the music and movie industry combined.
Originally Posted by Computer GremlinThe blame lies directly with the parents and the children. Without a doubt if they did not take the extra couple minutes to look up the game rating online before buying a video game children would be exposed to less graphic material. This leads to another issue as well, real violence in and outside the home. Blaming video games for all the ills of society cannot hide the fact removing offensive material from children and making them aware that bad things happen to good people is impossible.
*snip* From personal experience dealing with animals on a farm all the articles on video game violence are not founded in good faith. Unstable and violent children can be dangerous regardless if their parents buy a mature rated game or place them in a plastic bubble for the first 18 years of their life. Most children do change but it takes a strong will to make it happen and it is something the government should have no part of in the family.
Originally Posted by Computer Gremlin Video games are not very violent.
Originally Posted by Paradigm Shifter(Music and movies have big Associations backing them, who have a lot of money... computer gaming is too small and fragmented, and doesn't have the cash to keep top-flight lawyers on retainer to fight idiots who want a scapegoat. As much as it pains me to admit it, computer gaming almost needs a "CGAA", a gaming equivalent of the RIAA or MPAA, to lobby politicians etc...)
Part of the reason this report was commissioned was because of the stabbing of a youth in Leicester by a kid who was said to be obsessed with the Rockstar game Manhunt. This led to the mother of the victim calling for violent video games to be banned and her view has been backed by many other loud voices.
When 14-year-old Stefan Pakeerah (left) was brutally murdered in 2004, there were claims that his killer, 17-year-old Warren LeBlanc, was inspired to commit the crime by playing the original Manhunt video game.
That position has largely been discredited over the years. A Scotland Yard investigation of the crime showed that, while Pakerrah himself owned a copy of the game, his killer did not.
Originally Posted by JaverhI resent this kind of discrimination of one or two types of medias while others come through unscathed. Why is it that books and cd's don't have ratings? Would you buy Eminem's cd for a five-year-old? Or read him a bed-side story from Steven King's Salem's Lot?
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
25th June 2015
24th June 2015
© Copyright bit-tech