Kids Playing 1st Person Shooter Games

[MacNCheese.]

I got this idea from another thread. Thanks, \/aarsivius!

Well I think that kids shouldn't play MW2, because, as stated by \/aarsivius,
they'll want to kill and try to pick up a gun and shot because it's fun in game.

Debate

 

[Seikend]

I got this idea from another thread. Thanks, \/aarsivius!

Well I think that kids shouldn't play MW2, because, as stated by \/aarsivius,
they'll want to kill and try to pick up a gun and shot because it's fun in game.

Debate

I'll just post my initial stance for now, will probably get into the debate properly in a day or so.

We'd need to define kids first, but I'm not inherently against kids playing MW2.

Children are not dumb and are able to distinguish between reality and fantasy. They know that shooting in a game might be fun, doesn't mean they'll find it fun in reality.

 

[ballin4life]

When you play MW2, do you want to pick up a real gun and kill people?

Then factor in that kids can't get guns, and a kid wouldn't be able to hold any of the guns in MW2 anyway .

And what would you propose to do about this anyway? There is an age limit already with the ESRB.

This is all predicated on kids being complete idiots too. I'm pretty sure at age 6 (well before I ever would have played MW2) I knew the difference between video games and real life.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Really, it just depends on maturity. It feels phony to set up strict barriers like "you must be 17 to play this". They're guidelines, not laws. They're meant to give parents an idea as to what maturity a kid should have to play the game.

I'm an example of this. I'm 16 years old, yet I play M-rated games frequently, such as Fallout 3, Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, etc. I appreciate not only the fun, but also the artwork and storytelling that goes into the creation of such games. Also, as an avid computer programmer, I like to think about how they code certain parts of the game.

Luckily, I haven't yet picked up a gun and shot someone, nor have I attempted to inject myself with plasmids, nor have I even attached a hidden blade to my hand! Moreover, I'm able to maintain a calm demeanor when playing these games. Also, I don't let my grades suffer due to these games; I rarely play except on weekends or other breaks.

Do you think I shouldn't be allowed to play M-rated games?

(Also, Seikend is quite right that we'll need to define "kids" -- legally speaking, 17 year olds are kids, but they are at the suggested age level to play M-rated games such as Modern Warfare 2.)

 

[\/aarsivius]

XD Thanks Storm.

I know a kid who started playing COD 4, and now he always talks about guns. 'Tis insane. He's only 7 year old, and he already knows what a Nuke is.

 

[asianaussie]

Should we outright ban children playing FPS games in order to eliminate such cases of violence, or should we find a less 'extreme' measure, and are there any practical measures as such?

Is there any validity to the claims that videogames encourage violence, and if so, what measures have been taken against them?

A recent Professor Layton game has you construct your own weapon and fire it towards thugs. It is indescribably cool and made me want to build one of my own. Would this count as encouraging violence?

Also Storm, post more than 'topic, Debate plz', because that'll give more starting off points and focus the debate into something more topical. Definitions would also be appreciated.

 

[Mic_128]

Then factor in that kids can't get guns

You haven't heard the stories about kids getting a hold of the family guns and shooting themselves/relatives/people at school?

Really, it just depends on maturity. It feels phony to set up strict barriers like "you must be 17 to play this". They're guidelines, not laws. They're meant to give parents an idea as to what maturity a kid should have to play the game.

Both yes and no. They ideally are a guideline, but over here it's also illegal to sell an M15+ game to an underage child without a parent present.

I'm an example of this. I'm 16 years old, yet I play M-rated games frequently, such as Fallout 3, Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, etc. I appreciate not only the fun, but also the artwork and storytelling that goes into the creation of such games. Also, as an avid computer programmer, I like to think about how they code certain parts of the game.

I can't speak for the ratings in your country, but over here you're fine. Our (stupid) system only goes up to MA15+.

Personally I think 'No First Person Shooters' is a bit vague. I understand what you mean, but does that mean Dead Space is fine? It's 3rd Person after all.

Yes, it's ideally up to the parents, but lets face it, a lot of them use the computers and consoles as babysitters. I work in schools and I always cringe when I hear 10 year olds talking about what they got up to in GTA on their console last night. They shouldn't be bragging to their friends about anything they do with or to prostitutes.

I don't necessarily agree with your specifics, but I would like to have some of the move adult games kept out of their hands until they are old enough or their parents thought they were mature enough. Not that they went and bought it themselves or their parents got it because little Johny wanted that one.'

 

[Sucumbio]

Ozzy Osbourne faced this type of correlation decades ago, when I was a child, and of course Marilyn Manson years later. Rap music has also been blamed for inciting violence and in teens and even younger. The question's been put before some of the highest courts in the land, and before psychologists and professionals. The answer? Music, books, tv, movies, video games, they're forms of art and expression. They're entertainment. If you're of such weak character that you can be influenced by these to break the law, then you were destined for that to begin with. As Em says, "where were the parents at?" Where indeed...

 

[ballin4life]

In how many school shooting stories are the kids involved really young enough that they don't understand the difference between video games and real life?

Regardless, it's not the video game's fault, it's the parent's fault for having guns laying around.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Both yes and no. They ideally are a guideline, but over here it's also illegal to sell an M15+ game to an underage child without a parent present.

True, but it's not illegal for someone under the age limit to play the game. I think the buying rule is mainly to prevent underage kids from getting it without their parents knowing. As long as parents are aware of an underage kid playing a game, the kid can play it.

I can't speak for the ratings in your country, but over here you're fine. Our (stupid) system only goes up to MA15+.

In america, the "M" rating means you are supposed to be 17.

Personally I think 'No First Person Shooters' is a bit vague. I understand what you mean, but does that mean Dead Space is fine? It's 3rd Person after all.

I assume this is directed at the OP...?

Yes, it's ideally up to the parents, but lets face it, a lot of them use the computers and consoles as babysitters. I work in schools and I always cringe when I hear 10 year olds talking about what they got up to in GTA on their console last night. They shouldn't be bragging to their friends about anything they do with or to prostitutes.

I don't necessarily agree with your specifics, but I would like to have some of the move adult games kept out of their hands until they are old enough or their parents thought they were mature enough. Not that they went and bought it themselves or their parents got it because little Johny wanted that one.'

I definitely don't mean the parents always might correct decisions, nor am I saying that the ratings should be taken away. I just think there's nothing wrong with an underage kid playing a game if he/she is mature enough and their parents give consent.

 

[MacNCheese.]

Well, let's say you play brawl a lot, you'll probably think about brawl during the day, especially if you think it's fun. So if Call of Duty is fun, won't you think about that all day? Guns, etc. If you think about GTA, your really thinking sbout ****,stealing,gangs,drugs etc.
Your thinking about everything that gets you in jail. Is that what these games were made for? No. Is that what you want to happen to all these kids(haha I'm only 13 myself)? No.

Really, you can be as mature as you want, but when your like 22 you understand the purpose of the game more. Kids take things a little too seriously at the wrong times. Trial & Error, we learn from it.

 

[Seikend]

Well, let's say you play brawl a lot, you'll probably think about brawl during the day, especially if you think it's fun. So if Call of Duty is fun, won't you think about that all day? Guns, etc. If you think about GTA, your really thinking sbout ****,stealing,gangs,drugs etc.
Your thinking about everything that gets you in jail. Is that what these games were made for? No. Is that what you want to happen to all these kids(haha I'm only 13 myself)? No.

Really, you can be as mature as you want, but when your like 22 you understand the purpose of the game more. Kids take things a little too seriously at the wrong times. Trial & Error, we learn from it.

No such thing as a thought crime, what's wrong with children thinking about it?

And when you think of brawl, you think of fighting in the style of the game. In that fantasy realm with no blood, and percentages and all your favourite video game characters. Not a real life street brawl.

Likewise if you play CoD you won't be thinking of the guns and war in real life, you think of them within the context of the game, i.E.. fantasy.

 

[MacNCheese.]

Well, the point was.....hmmmmm... how do i put it...... xD Okay, well there was this boy who didnt want to be ate for school so he drove because he learned from GTA. A 12 YEAR OLD. Playing with a fake gun on the wii, teaches you how to use these things, later you'll say," Hm, I should try this. I already know how too." CoD and the like teach you how the guns work, especially wii Fps's

 

[KrazyGlue]

Obviously, most 12 years olds should not be playing GTA. There's no denying that many children play M-rated games who should not be doing so. If that is the point you're trying to make, I agree with you.

Now, if you are saying that NOBODY under 17 should be allowed to play M-rated games, that's where I disagree, as I've already stated.

Could you please clarify which point you are trying to make?

 

[ballin4life]

Every argument basically comes down to "OMG I know some kid that's stupid"

That's anecdotal evidence. Plus 1 bad apple shouldn't spoil it for everyone else. If 99.99% of people can play the game then that's fine.

Not to mention that there already is a ban on selling these games to children. What more do you want? Security cameras in everyone's homes to make sure that kids aren't playing violent games?

 

[MacNCheese.]

Obviously, most 12 years olds should not be playing GTA. There's no denying that many children play M-rated games who should not be doing so. If that is the point you're trying to make, I agree with you.

Now, if you are saying that NOBODY under 17 should be allowed to play M-rated games, that's where I disagree, as I've already stated.

Could you please clarify which point you are trying to make?

Yes, I'm saying younger kids shouldn't play GTA

 

[UberMario]

It's kind of a strange subject morally and legally: Where's the line drawn for when someone can or can not play Mature games? Is it even possible to force a limit since a parent buys them the game (and thus has the right to obtain it?)

In my opinion, If there were more E-rated or T-rated shooters along the lines of Yoshi's Safari, or Megaman Legends, there would be less minors playing violent shooter games (though, odds are, it wouldn't significantly change the amount of kids that played M-rated games, it could curb it slightly by giving parents another option). It could potentially be difficult though to keep the rating low without being obviously oriented toward children due to today's standards, but I believe it is still possible.

Honestly, the ESRB and whatnot may curb the use of M-rated games by minors, but it will never stop them, the only solution [if one is actually necessary, or possible] is to create games that still fit that niche without overly violent connotations. For fighting-type games, there are plenty already filling the "oriented to every age" violence category, such as:

-Super Smash Bros.
-Marvel vs. Capcom
-Pocket Fighter
-Mugen (though due to it's nature, that obviously can vary, however, most characters available feel more cartoony than brutal out of design)
-Digimon Rumble Arena
-Sonic the Fighters/Sonic Battle
-Jump Ultimate Stars (a manga mashup fighter)

As well as a plethora of others due to the genre's popularity, heck, there is going to be a Cartoon Network fighter coming out soon, why don't some of the bigger companies take advantage of the insane popularity of Shooters and make one more oriented toward the younger fanbase? (Megaman in particular could easily lead the way toward this [again] if done right)

I have no idea how a game like GTA-style could be lowered down to a minor-oriented level, though, it's kind of hard to portray a life of crime in a kid-friendly way when they're the ones doing the crimes in-game.

 

[MacNCheese.]

I have no idea how a game like GTA-style could be lowered down to a minor-oriented level, though, it's kind of hard to portray a life of crime in a kid-friendly way when they're the ones doing the crimes in-game.

I agree, acutally.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yes, I'm saying younger kids shouldn't play GTA

If you're saying nobody under 17 should play GTA, here's the response I gave earlier:

Really, it just depends on maturity. It feels phony to set up strict barriers like "you must be 17 to play this". They're guidelines, not laws. They're meant to give parents an idea as to what maturity a kid should have to play the game.

I'm an example of this. I'm 16 years old, yet I play M-rated games frequently, such as Fallout 3, Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, etc. I appreciate not only the fun, but also the artwork and storytelling that goes into the creation of such games. Also, as an avid computer programmer, I like to think about how they code certain parts of the game.

Luckily, I haven't yet picked up a gun and shot someone, nor have I attempted to inject myself with plasmids, nor have I even attached a hidden blade to my hand! Moreover, I'm able to maintain a calm demeanor when playing these games. Also, I don't let my grades suffer due to these games; I rarely play except on weekends or other breaks.

Do you think I shouldn't be allowed to play M-rated games?

I'd like for you to respond.

 

[Seikend]

I have no idea how a game like GTA-style could be lowered down to a minor-oriented level, though, it's kind of hard to portray a life of crime in a kid-friendly way when they're the ones doing the crimes in-game.

A game in which you break social etiquette, like biting your nails and saying naughty words.

Sounds like a blast.




Violent video games are often criticised for being the cause of crimes and general violent behaviour, particularly in young people. I aim to show that violent videogames are not the cause for violence in children, and that they should be available for them to play.

By children, I will mean people between the age of 12 and 17. I believe this is the demographic that is capable of playing videogames, but are underage for the 18+ rating.


Let us consider two scenarios: One in which the child can distinguish between reality and fantasy, and one that cannot distinguish.

• The child who can distinguish knows that it may be fun in a videogame, but not necessarily in real life. Whilst they might enjoy violence in the game, it does not motivate them to commit violence in reality purely "for fun".
  
  
• A child who cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy, however, might be motivated to commit real life violence for personal enjoyment. This is not a problem with the game, but rather the child. Removing the videogame does not solve the issue, the child still cannot make that distinction, regardless of the medium of that fantasy. Such a child needs psychological help. It is better to cure, than to prevent.

If children are violent "for fun", a game cannot be considered the culprit.


Next, consider that playing violent videogames makes children think and talk about violence.

Let's assume that the above premise is true.

I still fail to see the issue.

• Once again, there's the distinction between fantasy and reality. They're talking and thinking about fake violence. While they might talk about nuking each other and guns, it's in the context of the game.
  
  
• There is of course, the possibility that an interest in a violent videogame makes children want to go and learn about guns etc. in reality. Once again, where is the issue? What is wrong with a child knowing different models of guns, how they work etc.? There's still no harm done, knowledge of a gun's mechanics doesn't mean they will want to use one on someone.

Storm brings up the point that playing violent videogames teaches children how to use guns, (or at least make them think they know how to), racing games teaching them to drive.

The problem with this is that it still doesn't give any motive. While you might find that children who play violent videogames use a gun better than children that don't, they still don't have a reason to use that gun.


The fact of the matter is that violent videogames do not motivate people to commit violence. The motivation comes from the person themself, and at most games makes it easier to commit violence once a person has that motivation.


Well, does making violence easier to commit warrant blame?

Possibly.

Does that mean it should be banned?

Definetely not.


Kitchen knives, scissors, rope, cars, free will, bricks, money: They all make violence easier to commit. However, they remain in society because the benefits far outweigh the cost.


And so, the criteria for banning videogames from children revolves around this. Does the social cost outweigh the benefit?


While videogames might teach children ways to commit violence, it doesn't provide a motive to commit violence.

While videogames might teach children about types of weapons, it doesn't supply them with a weapon.

While videogames might teach children that violence is fun in fantasy, it doesn't teach them that it's fun in reality.

While videogames might cause a few children to be violent, Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of children are being entertained, without causing any real world violence.



That, ladies and gentlemen, is why violent videogames does not cause violence in children, and why children should be allowed to play MW2.

Thank you, and goodnight.


EDIT: Eh, just reread this and I think I come out as a bit of a tool.

 

[#HBC | ѕoup]

Here's my main standpoint:
No, kids shouldn't be able to play 1st person shooter games.

It is not even a sense of maturity that determines how that kid will act now, it's also a factor of who he is communicating with on such games (such as xbox live) and how the game potrays itself.

Teaching Kids that war is hell and bloody and violent,bad.
teaching kids that war is hell and bloody and violent but you are still praised for sniping a guy in the head 50 feet away, bad.

if you combine all factors of most FPS' today:
Terrible community (****IN' ****** ***** CAMPING ****ING HOMO)
Grotesque violence
Awards for kills (Kill/Death Ratios, etc.)


what do you get with all that?
a 6 year old who swears like a sailor, thinks blood and violence is 'cool'.

in fact, forget all what i said...
PARENTS
STOP
BUYING
YOUR
KIDS
M RATED
GAMES

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

I agree with CrazyGlue "it just depends on maturity
Not all kids are the same, and there're some of them able to keep the difference in their mind between fiction and reality.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Soupamario, we're not talking about 6 year olds here, we're talking about the difference between, say, a mature 16 year old and an immature 17 year old. Age should not be the only factor in deciding who can play a game.

 

[OnlyUseMeNades]

I think the main problem is not the content and gameplay, but the community that is involved with the game.

Say the person is in the 9-13-ish range. They may pick up some bad language and habits, and I personally find it disturbing when I see kids talking about "how cool it was to see that guy blow up" and shooting as fun.

However, the community. The people who inhabit various online shooters and talk to kids. They bring a bad influence by first introducing them to the language and how seriously then take a game. It's not just anonymous people, it can be their friends or older relative/acquaintance who do this.

I believe many kids who play would not let it distort their view of the game if not influenced by people.

 

[Skadorski]

I think a lot of this involves parents. The parents are usually the ones buying the games for the kids, and even if they aren’t they should be watching what they’re playing. I, too, agree with KrazyGlue. There are children that are more mature than teens/adults.

Here's my main standpoint:
No, kids shouldn't be able to play 1st person shooter games.

It is not even a sense of maturity that determines how that kid will act now, it's also a factor of who he is communicating with on such games (such as Xbox live) and how the game portrays itself.

Going to get to this later.

Teaching Kids that war is hell and bloody and violent, bad.
Teaching kids that war is hell and bloody and violent but you are still praised for sniping a guy in the head 50 feet away, bad.

I’m pretty sure kids already know war is bloody and violent, and I don’t see how that is “bad”.

If you combine all factors of most FPS' today:
Terrible community (****IN' ****** ***** CAMPING ****ING HOMO)

Let’s think about this for a second. Assuming the parent knows that the child has an “M” rated game (and they should be paying attention to what they’re playing), why would they let them use Xbox LIVE with it? The community would obviously use bad language.

Grotesque violence
Awards for kills (Kill/Death Ratios, etc.)

If you don’t want your kid playing something with bad violence, then don’t buy anything with that in it, or turn off the ability to play M rated games on the Xbox with parental controls.

I think the main problem is not the content and gameplay, but the community that is involved with the game.

Say the person is in the 9-13-ish range. They may pick up some bad language and habits, and I personally find it disturbing when I see kids talking about "how cool it was to see that guy blow up" and shooting as fun.

However, the community. The people who inhabit various online shooters and talk to kids. They bring a bad influence by first introducing them to the language and how seriously then take a game. It's not just anonymous people; it can be their friends or older relative/acquaintance who do this.
I believe many kids who play would not let it distort their view of the game if not influenced by people.

I agree with this, but he parents should just turn off Xbox LIVE for the game. The Xbox has parental controls that can prevent Xbox LIVE for specific games. And even if the kid doesn’t own the game, the friends can still talk about it and use that kind of language.