Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

You Played Violent Games - Why Can't Your Kids?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the time-to-sit-your-kid-down-to-have-the-frags-and-camping-talk dept.

Games 501

An anonymous reader writes: "On the Wired site, Clive Thompson has up an article that points out a sobering truth: gamers are getting older. Folks who grew up playing videogames like Doom and Quake are now facing parental decisions with their own kids regarding appropriate content. Thompson cites well known gamer dads like Kotaku's Brian Crecente, discussing some of the approaches folks educated in gaming take with their own offspring: '"Everybody knows, as an adult, that the world is not always a nice place," Crecente told me. "But I don't want him to know that yet. I want him to have a childhood." So he disallows games with "realistic" combat, like World War II titles, or Resistance: Fall of Man, but permits highly cartoony shooting, like Starfox on the Nintendo DS -- since he regards it as essentially as abstract as playing cops and robbers with your fingers as guns.' Where do you think gamer parents should draw the line? If you have kids, what approach are you taking to introducing them to gaming? How old is 'old enough' to start fragging?"

cancel ×

501 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

My vision on things (5, Interesting)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661231)

I don't know what I'd do, but I do know what my parents did... both non-gamers, but my dad was (and is) quite proficient with computers. Our advantage was that the computer came "late in the game", so I was about 12, my brother 14 and my little sister was 8.

Computers were expensive and we had to share one computer. My dad or mother didn't say "one hour", no, they said it had to be fairly distributed. The system introduced was simple and self-regulating: write down what you were playing and at what hour you started and stopped. Your siblings could come in at any time and say "hey, you already played an hour... it's my turn". That meant, finish level and/or save and let your sibling have a go. Whining brought you nowhere, because mom or dad would invariably take the side of the person that had played least.

No things regulated "playing time" quite fairly and the net result was that we played each about 1 hour to 1.5 hours a day. Pretty much what the article stated.

Now as for violence and/or sex in videogames. My parents never forbade any games. We had the full programme Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, etc... Blood and gore were not a problem. (Heck, later we loved to play a game called "Blood"... Good times!) In the early days we mostly played Sierra games (a dying breed... alas...) and it helped us (okay, perhaps just me) learn English. I sat there for hours with my dutch-english dictionary. Fun times... We also had stuff like Strip poker and our good old Leisure Suit Larry.

The only thing I remember is that my dad forbade Syndicate... Or better said, we had to play it with headphones. He abhorred the sound of the people burning when using the flamethrower.

The main problem is not the nature of the game. Wolfenstein let us kill humans after all. Except, they didn't look much like humans then, did they? A current game with current graphics is way closer to reality than whatever we had.

On the other hand, I think kids tend to be self-regulating in what they want to do. Younger kids simply won't be interested in shooting people/aliens. They will probably go for the more colourful games. I see this when my fathers in laws kids from his second wife are here. They never ask to put stuff like GTA3, even if I let them choose from my PlayStation2 library. It's always stuff like Kya [wikipedia.org] , eyeToy Groove or Sonic Heroes.

Teenagers will probably love stuff like GTA3, Halo, whatever... but there all bets are off. You cannot control them. They already watch violent movies, they play the games you don't want them to play at friends. In the teenage years, parents have to let loose slowly but surely. Something I also learnt from my parents. (Note that when we got a computer, we were pretty much teenagers)

I know you can tell by now that I think my parents did a great job.... I plan to inspire me as much as possible from what I learnt from then.

Re:My vision on things (5, Insightful)

jovetoo (629494) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661369)

That system would work perfectly... if your parents succeeded in raising you well in general.

If you raise your kids well, they will recognize what is a game and what isn't... and in the end, that is the issue here.

Re:My vision on things (5, Interesting)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661391)

In that case, the message is simple: Raise your children well....

Easy to say, of course... Difficult to put into practice.

Re:My vision on things (2, Interesting)

GMC-jimmy (243376) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661559)

FTFA;

If you have kids, what approach are you taking to introducing them to gaming? How old is 'old enough' to start fragging?


For the first part of that; `Don't feed a coin slot.` is the morale of my story and the grease that helped bring the console into my home.

For the second part of that; It ain't the frags that worry me, it's the gibs that raise red flags with me.

Re:My vision on things (5, Funny)

sherms (15634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661637)

Pleading innocent here. Pong was it for me :)

Re:My vision on things (4, Funny)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661805)

You're forgetting, though, the most important part of being a parent:

Banning your kids from doing anything you thought was fun as a child.

Listen, I was living on high with a pad of my own, 100k surplus to spend on whatever I wanted, and then I got tied down with those little shits... why should *I* be the only one to suffer for it?!

(ED: BakaHoushi is a 20 year old jobless college student. Any resemblance to actual fact in the above post is unintentional and completely coincidental.)

Re:My vision on things (3, Insightful)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661643)

When I was a kid, the "violent" games where 8-bit pixelated. The games now are much different. With graphics approaching nearly the realism it is, the games take on a new light.

I probably won't let my kids play the violent games of their day. Racing games and sports games, yes. FPS with gruesome graphics showing blood spurting from a beheaded body? No. Not until they are older and have the intelligence to understand the different between games and reality.

Re:My vision on things (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661787)

I do realize that, and I mentioned that in my own post. Thing is, you forget the appeal. I don't think an eight year old will be appealed by gore-infested games. They'll naturally choose the milder things. We played them and liked them, but point is: would we have if they were gory. My guess is not...

It works both ways... Would we have played Double Dragon if at every kick blood would have sprayed over the whole screen? I don't think I would, at least not at a below-ten age.

There is no right age (4, Interesting)

VirusEqualsVeryYes (981719) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661233)

Where do you think gamer parents should draw the line? If you have kids, what approach are you taking to introducing them to gaming? How old is 'old enough' to start fragging?"
As with everything related to parenting, there are no hard and fast rules. Good parents will get a feel for how mature their kids are, and afford them the appropriate privileges. Mediocre parents will rely on the ratings on the boxes, and bad parents (or the politically-correct "distracted" parents) will let their kids play whatever.

FWIW, Crecente seems to have some pretty reasonable rules here.

Re:There is no right age (2, Informative)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661415)

As with everything related to parenting, there are no hard and fast rules. Good parents will get a feel for how mature their kids are, and afford them the appropriate privileges.

Exactly. I've got a 7-year-old, a 4-year-old, and a 2-year-old. (And one due in June). They have plenty of fun with the Humongous games (hint: they run really well, and without the CD, under SCUMMVM), but the oldest sometimes likes to run the mouse when we play Descent3 or the older Half-Life games or a couple of other first-person shooters. Heck, I've even let him help me play Aliens vs. Predator, and that's a creepy game.

They don't get nightmares from that stuff. They even pretend to have pet headcrabs. (Go ahead, trolls, do your worst with that straight line.) What's funny is that the AvP game didn't scare the four-year-old, but he got scared by a cartoon of "Peter and the Wolf" that he saw in his music class.

It hasn't instilled a bloodthirsty lust for violence in them, either. They don't get into fights with other kids, and right now the 7-year-old loves Lego Star Wars. If you want a game with cartoon violence, as opposed to the realistic kind, check that one out.

Now, the 2 year old, and the new one coming? They might be different. I'll have to see what works for them and what doesn't. But games themselves are not inherently damaging or anything like that.

Re:There is no right age (2, Funny)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661765)

Lego Star Wars is also a spouse-friendly game. My wife loves it because, after I beat the levels, she can go around and collect every goddamn stud in the level. I wouldn't mind except she insists we play together, and waiting for someone to check every single place for studs is crazy-making.

Re:There is no right age (1, Funny)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661793)

Scared by Peter and The Wolf, hu? Must have been that damned Wolf leitmotif. French Horns are evil. ;P

Parents bred up on games makes poor parents (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661463)

This article is interesting because it highlights a new scenario: Now there are parents almost solely bred up on video games. Now is their turn to reverse the roles.

Problem is, if you think your parents stink as a kid, how would you like having video-game junkies as parents?

(Note there are always exceptions to any rule or hypothesis, every human is unique and no labels should be applied. Just think of this as an enlightening exercise in how you would really like to live your life.)

Re:There is no right age (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661529)

While what you say is correct, I don't seem to get why his rules are so reasonable. It's a given that he has played violent video games when he was a kid, and yet he feels that if he lets his kids play them, they are somehow "not having a childhood".
 
In any case, I disagree with the belief that realistic violence in games is deemed realistic by the kids who play the games. I've played all the games that were considered to be realistic, and I never became an "early grownup" because of it. If you sit back and look at the "realistic" games of today, you'll notice that even the ones that are made to look and feel as real as possible are really just games. Kids in particular will be able to realize this as much as they know that people don't really die in James Bond films.

XD (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661239)

If you're sooo concerned about video game violence, just buy your kids a Wii then. Or a SNES.

Re:XD (3, Insightful)

bkr1_2k (237627) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661757)

Or don't buy anything at all. Kids don't need video games.

A lot of parenting is hypocritical (3, Insightful)

Mr EdgEy (983285) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661243)

As humans we are not perfect, it's like telling your kids to buckle down in school knowing full well you never did all the time.

Re:A lot of parenting is hypocritical (1)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661561)

heh, even though we didn't 'buckle down' in school all the time I think we at least would have done a lot worse if we didnt have parents continually reminding us of what we should do. When you are young you uhh 'forget' to do things, and by forget I mean get distracted with fun stuff.

Re:A lot of parenting is hypocritical (1)

TheGatekeeper (309483) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661633)

Is that really hypocritical? We tell them to buckle down in school all the time, but we know they will only do so about half the time. Even if we knew they would only work 1/4th as hard as we told them to, does that make it not worthwhile to get that 25%?

The problem with overly laissez-faire parenting is that kids will always want to push the boundaries of what is permissible. When nothing is forbidden, they have to go that much further to be outrageous.

Re:A lot of parenting is hypocritical (5, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661703)

As humans we are not perfect, it's like telling your kids to buckle down in school knowing full well you never did all the time.
Is it being hypocritical, or is it passing on knowledge? I used to binge drink on the weekends when I was in high school, but I seldom ever drink any more. It hurt me in school, sports and life in general. Just because I did stupid thing when I was younger doesn't mean that I should be afraid to tell my kids "Don't do stupid things." If that's being a hypocrite, then I'm all for it.

The world is a big and scary place (3, Insightful)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661245)

The world is a big and scary place. And children need to learn that too, and fast.

There's nothing worse than isolating children from reality, because it will start hitting them in the face one day or another. Let them watch the news, play video games, etc. It can't hurt.

When they go to school they'll need to learn the rules anyway, in order to survive (not literally, of course).

The world is full of sick, twisted, demented elements. Video games, and also the internet are a very safe approach - because you can't be harmed. Chatrooms can help children to spot lies - and this is always a helpful skill out there.

Sheltering kids has never helped them.

Re:The world is a big and scary place (5, Insightful)

midnighttoadstool (703941) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661323)

"Sheltering kids has never helped them."

...and where does that bit of dogma come from?

The opposite is much more likely true : the nature of childhood is to be sheltered. Just as animals shelter their offspring until they are capable of coping with it without being immediately eaten.

Further: the young have a strong 'copy' instinct, which is how they seem to learn the basics. Putting the 'real world' in front of them before they have reached the age of autonomy is asking for trouble.

The "expose them to the real-world dogma" is all nice and progressive and seemingly commonsense, but it is almost certainly unnatural. And anything that is unnatural, like margarine, is bad news, I reckon. (BTW, I am not arguing against the 'artificial', which is a distinct idea from that which is 'unnatural').

Re:The world is a big and scary place (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661471)

Putting the 'real world' in front of them before they have reached the age of autonomy is asking for trouble.
Why? Children have to learn that moral values that are thought to them by school and by religion are not absolute. They are just rules, to be bend and broken if the situation demands.

The "expose them to the real-world dogma" is all nice and progressive and seemingly commonsense, but it is almost certainly unnatural.
A lot of things we humans do are very, very unnatural. Like social welfare. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

Re:The world is a big and scary place (4, Insightful)

midnighttoadstool (703941) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661707)

"Children have to learn that moral values that are thought to them by school and by religion are not absolute."

Is that an absolute? Do you believe in absolutes, like the religious do? You are being dogmatic, after all.

"A lot of things we humans do are very, very unnatural. Like social welfare. That doesn't mean it's wrong."

You are presuming that it isn't wrong, but I reckon the opposite. Instead of looking after each other, as we did in the past, and having meaning in our lives through that, the State has rendered our lives almost purposeless. And so we just play video games all day, and watch TV. In the past we would have looked after our parents until they died. We wouldn't have called them a burden. Now, because of our social welfare mentality, we shove them in to tombs for the living. And that is just a small example of one of the many distortions that social welfare has caused.

Ironically a group of people who have a strong reason to want such an unnatural thing as 'social welfare' are the selfish and unloving.

Re:The world is a big and scary place (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661795)

Is that an absolute? Do you believe in absolutes, like the religious do? You are being dogmatic, after all.
It's hard to say what is absolute, and what not. Reality is constantly changing, and constantly shifting. You have to adapt yourself to the world all the time.

As such, there are not absolutes - but their are rules of thumb, viable for some period in time.

the State has rendered our lives almost purposeless.
You're telling me it isn't? In the long run, life is purposeless. If the only purpose for your life you can muster is caring for your parents, then you're living a very sad life.

Re:The world is a big and scary place (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661571)

"The "expose them to the real-world dogma" is all nice and progressive and seemingly commonsense, but it is almost certainly unnatural"

I'm not sure where you live buddy but during my public schooling we saw everything, by the time highschool was around the corner nothing was a big deal. IMHO sheltered kids DO tend to have problems later in life especially socially. Think about all those kids "sheltered" by their religious nutcase parents, that kind of sheltering still exists unfortunate as it is.

In my opinion there is little you can do to raise a kid right other then learn how to parent yourself, if you want to be a good parent, just look at how your parents failed you. That's all you need, I'd venture to guess some of the best parents are among the faild children of the world. Because they know everything their parents did wrong and promised themselves not to repeat it.

Re:The world is a big and scary place (1)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661639)

... Just as animals shelter their offspring until they are capable of coping with it without being immediately eaten. ...

Yes, but baby animals are not just sheltered. They play fight with each other and with their parents, sometimes extremely roughly.

Re:The world is a big and scary place (1)

jgardner100 (559892) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661743)

| Yes, but baby animals are not just sheltered. They play fight with each other and with their parents, sometimes extremely roughly.

Yes, but the don't go and fight in the real world. Children don't need accurate violent simulations to start off with, rather they should be sheltered until the are ready.

Re:The world is a big and scary place (5, Insightful)

grumbel (592662) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661345)

There's nothing worse than isolating children from reality, because it will start hitting them in the face one day or another. Let them watch the news, play video games, etc. It can't hurt.

I agree that you shouldn't isolate them to much from reality, but neither news or video games are reality. News compress the bad things of the world into tiny 15min action shows, what might be shown might be real to some degree, but its shown totally out of proportion. Planes might crash once a week, but thousands of them also land perfectly safely, news however doesn't show that, same with all the other bad stuff that happens. I wouldn't let my child watch news for quite a while, since there is really nothing you can learn from it when you don't even have a basic understanding of how the world works.

Now with video games things are even more extreme, they have absolutely no connection with reality, they might get inspiration from reality, but you next random WWII shooter isn't like fighting in WWII and GTA doesn't show the normal live on the street either. Now to some degree this is of course good, since well, its all fake and thus you can enjoy it without feeling all that bad, but on the other side I would prefer my child to learn facts about war from a good history book, not from a video game.

Re:The world is a big and scary place (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661421)

News compress the bad things of the world into tiny 15min action shows, what might be shown might be real to some degree, but its shown totally out of proportion. Planes might crash once a week, but thousands of them also land perfectly safely, news however doesn't show that, same with all the other bad stuff that happens.
Perfectly true. And this is exactly what parents should teach their children. That they understand reality, and are able to put it into proper dimensions.

I wouldn't let my child watch news for quite a while, since there is really nothing you can learn from it when you don't even have a basic understanding of how the world works.
This gives you a bit of a chicken-and-egg type of problem - at least for me newspapers are what gave me interest into history and politics.

Now to some degree this is of course good, since well, its all fake and thus you can enjoy it without feeling all that bad, but on the other side I would prefer my child to learn facts about war from a good history book, not from a video game.
You don't learn from video games - you play them to have fun. A child needs to learn that video games are completely disconnected from reality, and this is becoming more important as graphics get better and better.

Re:The world is a big and scary place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661359)

There's nothing worse than isolating children from reality,

I dunno, I think there's quite a few things worse than sheltering them from reality. Stabbing them to death, for example.

Re:The world is a big and scary place (1)

justthinkit (954982) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661385)

This is one side of the picture. The other side is that children need to learn how to solve math problems and spell words, and some won't do this if you give them unlimited video games, movies and television.

Our oldest is naturally bright, I guess. He consumes books yet loves WoW, and leans towards our adult movies despite being 13. He has a great sense of humor, is very helpful around the house, and will probably become a video game addict like his biological father.

Our second oldest loves Bionicles, and being creative. He can take or leave video games, movies and television. Surprisingly, he also has the most latent aggression, I think because he has the poorest social skills.

Our youngest likes it all, from popcorn to shoot-em-ups, Spongebob to Mushu. He is also the weakest at learning, by a fair margin. At times we have to hold his feet to the fire to get him to concentrate long enough (i.e. for several minutes) to figure out something -- recently that something was "what is half of 9?". Should he be allowed unlimited access to video games? How about the WoW lover?

Kids can not help being exposed to violent video games, swearing, etc. etc. If we don't do these things, the neighbor kids do. I accept this and frankly have no problem with it. They see one lifestyle at home, and different ones at other homes. I am completely comfortable letting them draw their own conclusions, just as I did, while I keep their video game time to 75 minutes a day. [Sadly, our 5 computers are available 24x7 for non-game usage but never ever get used by the kids for anything but video games.]

Re:The world is a big and scary place (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661449)

The other side is that children need to learn how to solve math problems and spell words, and some won't do this if you give them unlimited video games, movies and television.
Agreed. I'm not saying that children don't need any boundaries in their life - they do. I'm just saying that cutting them off from certain content isn't going to help matters.

I am completely comfortable letting them draw their own conclusions, just as I did, while I keep their video game time to 75 minutes a day
That's perfectly fine, children need rules and boundaries in order to get a halfway decent path ahead - goals are very important in life.

Re:The world is a big and scary place (1)

VirusEqualsVeryYes (981719) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661545)

It's painfully obvious that you've never dealt with children.

Sheltering kids has never helped them.
Good idea. Let's rally for mandatory military enrollment for all adolescents; after all, it's a big, scary, violent world out there, and the sooner they find out what the front lines are like, the better! ...Right?

Obviously not. Sheltering kids from sex and violence is not an ancient, irrational tradition brought down from the puritans; believe it or not, it actually has scientific backing. Young children exposed to domestic violence statistically develop social and emotional deficiencies and disorders. Children exposed to excessive (i.e., R-rated) movie violence statistically are more aggressive and prone to rage and temper. Even adults exposed to the front lines frequently develop depression, and they tend to drift away from society because they don't fit in--they have experienced too much.

So, yeah, there is reason behind sheltering children. Perhaps America's puritan views on sexuality are too strict, but those on violence are certainly not. Popular violence has led to aggression and arrogance, which the world now attributes to the typical "ugly American".

Frankly, sir, you and your views scare me.

Re:The world is a big and scary place (1)

Talchas (954795) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661627)

Where is your proof that "Children exposed to excessive (i.e., R-rated) movie violence statistically are more aggressive and prone to rage and temper"? And does the evidence show that watching those movies caused the aggression, or is it just correlated?

Re:The world is a big and scary place (1)

darth_linux (778182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661621)

There's nothing worse than isolating children from reality

right. reality. video games are not real. If kids are learning about reality from video games and tv (not news) then we have a big problem. Yes, kids should know bad things exist, but not (hopefully) from first-hand knowledge. We also have an obligation to attempt to raise kids with a sense of morality. Running around town with an uzi seeking to maim, murder, and destroy (and feeling good about it) does not make productive citizens. and... uh.. by the way: the Internet is not safe. It can be used safely, but there are dangerous elements who want nothing more than to hurt kids. The short of it: parents should always take an active role in their children's development.

Re:The world is a big and scary place (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661777)

Video games, and also the internet are a very safe approach - because you can't be harmed. Chatrooms can help children to spot lies - and this is always a helpful skill out there.
The internet is NOT safe. Kids need to be educated about the dangers of the internet (scams, phishing, paedophiles, or whatever else you find threatening). Chatrooms, being a subset of the former, can also be dangerous, not just for the reasons stated, but also that children can use them to wall you out of their lives altogether. They can do that with physical, face-to-face friendships, but there is even less accountability in a chatroom.

I also don't think chatrooms help kids spot lies either. Many of the tell-tale signs that a person is lying do not surface in plain text.

Sobering? (0)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661259)

Less sobering than the alternative would be.

You must be new here (-1, Offtopic)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661265)

Kids? This is slashdot.

Re:You must be new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661287)

Kids? This is slashdot.


Yeah, sounds ridiculous. My dad doesn't read Slashdot anymore, he says it's for kids, not for parents.

Actually, I played pinball and Centipede (4, Insightful)

justthinkit (954982) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661309)

Why can't we continue to play hand-eye coordination improving games? I've played pinball and hung around arcades for over 30 years. When the fight 'em kick 'em punch 'em games came in, the arcade became a ghost town.

I can understand that pinball machines, being electro-mechanical, are expensive to run. These days you might only see one or two in an arcade. But where have the simple but good video games gone? Oh, that's right, they have become violent.

It is not about censoring out violence -- our society has already done that, with kindergarten kids getting expelled if they use the f word twice (our son used it once, so we are flying without a safety net). It is about having some class -- Sin City is not a good movie, and Doom ain't interesting. Sorry to burst your bubble, script kiddies.

P.S. Sierra's 3D Ultra Pinball Thrillride is proof that you can make a superb video pinball game. Sadly it is discontinued. Luckily it is still available via Amazon, etc. for about $10.

Times seem to have changed (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661451)

I posted [slashdot.org] three years ago that Dragon's Lair and martial arts games killed the arcade, and got modded as flamebait. I guess the era of the classic video arcade is far removed in time now that it is considered a mythical time to most Slashdot readers.

Re:Actually, I played pinball and Centipede (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661455)

It's also in GameTap's library, for about $10/month, with around 900 other games. I agree it's one of the best pc pinball games ever.

But maybe you haven't seen Visual Pinball. While not quite as exciting as 3DUP Thrillride, it does seem to accurately recreate the classics.

http://www.pinballnirvana.com/ [pinballnirvana.com]

http://www.pinball-originals.com/portal.php [pinball-originals.com]

There's probably better links out there for it, but these give you access to some tables.

Re:Actually, I played pinball and Centipede (1)

justthinkit (954982) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661505)

Is this the pinball equiv. of MAME? If so, I started to install that 4 or 5 years ago and realized this ain't an "even your grandmother can do it" install. Gave up, sadly. Maybe it is time to revisit it.

It doesn't follow... (4, Interesting)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661525)

...that just because you abhor violence, sex, etc., in your media that 'Sin City', 'Doom' et al. are not good. It simply means they are uninteresting to you. It has nothing to do with class, and everything to do with age-appropriateness. Sin City and Doom are bad movies/games to be showing a kindergartener. Beyond that, you are just being snobby. (P.S. I'm pretty sure the arcade became a ghost town not because of violence, but because kids all of a sudden had access to games of similar quality right at their house or their friends' houses, with video game consoles and serious video-capable PCs).

There are, and always have been fun, interesting games that had no element of violence in them. Pinball is a good example (interestingly, Centipede is not, unless we don't care so long as it's violence against things not human, in which case you shouldn't care about Doom either). So was Myst (a personal fav). But there is no magical exclusionary rule that says if there are elements of violence, sex, and profanity a game is automatically bad and/or boring. The Longest Journey was a great game, but was full of profanity and had a good bit of the other two. Half-life and its sequel were both groundbreaking and engaging story-wise, but chock full of violence. Sin City was a fantastic movie, if for nothing else the artistic direction that was taken, but also the stories are quite gripping (and also inherently moral in dramatistic ways; you know, the same way Shakespeare's plays were morally tinged even though they were chock full of violence, sex, and profanity...).

Besides, all the good ol' games you seem bent on being nostalgic about are available in Flash or Java on the net somewhere or other. So, it's not like these options are forever lost to a parent trying to entertain a child age-appropriately.

Re:Actually, I played pinball and Centipede (1)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661699)

When the fight 'em kick 'em punch 'em games came in, the arcade became a ghost town.
I remember playing a LOT of Street Fighter and other fighting games at arcades.

Re:Actually, I played pinball and Centipede (1)

oergiR (992541) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661715)

It is not about censoring out violence -- our society has already done that, with kindergarten kids getting expelled if they use the f word twice

What kind of society do you live in where "fuck" denotes violence? How does your partner feel about that?

Re:Actually, I played pinball and Centipede (1)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661747)

So if you like Sin City and Doom you don't have class? Where did you come up with that crazy notion?

Re:Actually, I played pinball and Centipede (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661817)

Centipede was incredibly violent. Won't somebody think of the mushrooms?

Mmm, mushrooms...

You Played Violent Games - Why Can't Your Kids? (5, Funny)

Chaffar (670874) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661317)

...because they'll probably whup my ass.


Seriously, I've been taunted by too many 10-year-old's in LAN cafés, I don't want to have one in my friggin' house 24/7.

Re: You Played Violent Games - Why Can't Your Kids (4, Funny)

Marsala (4168) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661539)

Maybe.

But it could also be your one shot to get onto the roster for an eleet clan.

"Put daddy in the match, or else you're going to time-out. One. TWO...."

15, I think (1)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661321)

We didn't have an explicit policy on "no fragging" (aka no human targets) because it never came up. So when my son downloaded Castle Wolfenstein Enemy Territory this past year, I wasn't upset. In fact, I've been playing it at the same time as him on my Windows gaming machine. He got his own Windows gaming machine alongside his Linux box when he stacked 20 cord of wood last summer. We used to hang out on on [RRE], but we've switched to shitstorm because there is a more reliable crowd.

Re:15, I think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661535)

You should come check out the BBA servers. Their addresses are
gs.badassservers.net
customs.badassservers.net

Doom? Quake? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661325)

Folks who grew up playing videogames like Doom and Quake are now facing parental decisions with their own kids regarding appropriate content.
Huh? You do know that Doom first came out in 1993, don't you?

Re:Doom? Quake? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661355)

Yeah? I was about 11-12 at the time, which makes me now..25. That's prime kid-having-demographic.

I remember kids passing around Doom demo disks at school. Trying to modem up to each other, etc. Good times.. IDKFA!

Re:Doom? Quake? (1)

tweak4 (1074671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661745)

So what exactly is your point? Let's say someone was 6 years old in 1993- probably a little young for such games. That would make them about 20 now, which in my opinion is a bit young for kids, but plenty of people have them by that age. Personally, I was 15 when Doom came out, and played countless hours of it and various similar games. I'm almost 30 now, and while my wife and I don't have any of our own kids yet, the majority of our same-age friends do, and it won't be long before they're reaching for the controllers...

The pussification of America (-1, Flamebait)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661337)

As I have said before, the people who are just so anti-violent video games are pathologically incapable of accepting the fact that we young men tend to be aggressive, bordering on violent in our natures between the ages of about 15-25. Wow, that also corresponds to the multi-thousand year range in which soldiers were recruited for war! Huh, fancy that.

The majority of people I've ever met who are so scared by violent video games/media and guns are women and effeminate men. Should it surprise anyone? The ugly truth is that these people, tend to value security at the price of liberty. Voting patterns tend to support this; women and effeminate men will traditionally vote for the more collectivist parties (the ones guaranteeing welfare and warfare protection).

It doesn't bother me in the least to think that my sons, should I have sons when I have kids, will be shooting "scary guns," playing violent video games and doing things like that. It'd scare me a lot more if they wanted to always make peace with aggressors, "hear the bully's side" and other bullshit like that. Funny thing is, I've never met anyone who could reliably defend themselves who took the attitude "violence never solves anything." That sort of attitude reminds me of a kid, hugging his or her teddy bear, trying to comfort themselves about the scary monsters in the closet.

Short of games that glorify things like sadistic torture of realistic human beings, I could care less. If my kids, especially sons, want to play war games, I'll let them. It's not much different from any other media that young men have consumed about killing red coats, nazis, communists, etc.

Culture of Fear (0, Offtopic)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661567)

I wondered why so many people were willing to be surveiled without an evidence trail, be subject to rediculous and ineffective 'security procedures' before flying on an airline, and voluntarilly suppress their freedom of speech.

They are scared because they believe the hype. The scared ones scream for war, even after the war-mongerers have been shown to have lied. They are craven, pathetic dregs of society...nationalists, jingoists, religionists. It wasn't the pacifists who wanted to attack a nation that never hurt the USA...it was the scared-as-shit violent trash!

I blame the media that suppresses sexuality and glorifies violence and horror before I blame the pacifists. We've had the Hippies since the 1960s...I think this anti-violence trend is in reaction to the real violence being perpetrated arround the world in our name.

Re:Culture of Fear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661725)

So are you trying to say that instead of a culture full of easily scared, violent people, we should have a culture full of easily scared pacifists?

Couldn't we just have both violent and peaceful people who have some perspective?

War/Violence Has Never Solved Anything (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661689)

...except securing American Independance, ending slavery, ending Naziism, getting rid of the totalitarian dictatorship in Japan, quicken the end of the Soviet Regime, etc., etc.

Hmm (3, Interesting)

kitsunewarlock (971818) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661341)

To quote my Japanese friend on the subject of Anime censorship:

"Why censor children's [media]; kids have violent! Honestly, a child will see more blood spilled than most people in their adult years outside of war and medicine. Children are naturally violent creatures."

Note: not exact quote.

Wooo (1)

26199 (577806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661351)

I will now supply a one-size-fits-all answer to the question, so that parents can do the right thing with a clear conscience.

No, wait! The world is a big and scary place for parents, too. You know (should know) your kids better than anyone else. What's right for them? If you don't know, start with the small stuff, watch them play it, see if it's okay. If it worries them, they're too young. If they enjoy it, they're old enough.

People often forget that kids are a lot tougher than adults in many regards. Compare a violent computer game to a confrontation with a schoolground bully, for example. Many kids have to handle the latter, why should a computer game be a problem?

Why Can't Your Kids? (-1, Redundant)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661363)

They can.

Realism (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661377)

I suspect it's a matter of degrees of realism. There is a big difference between playing Doom, where you're shooting at bad guys who are fireball-throwing aliens, and playing recent GTA-style games that glamorise killing civilians in a realistic setting.

I don't like censorship as a general principle, but I have no problem with restricting what people are exposed to until they're grown up enough to understand what is real and what is pretend. This is probably where I would draw my line, if I had kids old enough for it to matter.

For what it's worth, I don't think the best games tend to be the photorealistic people-maiming types anyway. They can be entertaining for a while and have pretty pictures, but they tend to lack the depth of things like puzzle games, RTS or RPG titles. The only time they really have long-term value is when played in a co-operative environment with other real humans, and that changes the atmosphere fundamentally anyway.

Re:Realism (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661485)

nd playing recent GTA-style games that glamorise killing civilians in a realistic setting.

Glamourize? Did you even play GTA? You can go around and kill every soul in the street, but it isn't required. If you do, you also will pay for the consequences.... As a matter of fact, in the missions you usually get to deal with the scum of the world. Heck, you're scum yourself!

You do not have to kill a single innocent soul in whole Liberty City. Heck, as a matter of fact you can go play a taxi driver, or put out fires, or even rescue people with an ambulance. Heck, I remember someone posting on slashdot that his young daughter loved playing GTA3... as a taxi driver.

Nothing is mandatory in GTA, everything is voluntary.

Re:Realism (1)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661663)

There's 'voluntary' behavior and then there is 'encouraged' behavior. The game certainly facilitates through the way it is designed and the missions the characters perform a certain penchant for theft and murder through the liberal application of semi-automatic firearms. Sure, you don't *have* to kill everyone in sight, but it is expected by the structure of the game that you get your hands filthy dirty; the violent life is glamorized and encouraged. And yes, I have played. Thought GTA 1 and 2 were mindless nihilistic fun, and 3 was pretty boring.

GTA and its progeny are violent games, no two ways about it. Sure, one or two saints will find a way to eke out an enjoyable experience without harming a digital soul in such games, but these are anomalies.

Re:Realism (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661527)

"recent GTA-style games that glamorise killing civilians in a realistic setting."

I realize you said "GTA-style" there, but GTA itself doesn't glamorize killing civilians at all. In fact, there are immediate consequences for doing so unless no one else is around at all--just like in real life.

I've played San Andreas with my toddler on my lap. Granted, it was me getting into a semi and driving around at about 5mph trying to avoid smashing other cars or people, but he liked it anyway. You can even get a camera to take a weapon slot! I avoided the dildo melee weapon.

Fingers and guns (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661383)

> he regards it as essentially as abstract as playing cops
> and robbers with your fingers as guns

I don't know. When I was a kid I spent more time with my fingers up my nose ... ;)

You get to be an innocent child ONCE! (4, Interesting)

Seraphnote (655201) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661389)

You get to be an innocent child ONCE!

Unfortunately too many adults take this opportunity away from their children by exposing them to the violence and stupidities of humanity WAY TOO EARLY. Yes the violence and stupidity of humanity is real, and out there in the world, and it always has been...

What's the damn rush to expose children to it?

(And I'm still pissed off at the idiot parents who brought their toddler to the Planet of the Apes remake at 10:00 pm.)

Re:You get to be an innocent child ONCE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661569)

Nobody's forcing children to watch Auschwitz documentaries. Nor is anybody watching over kids' shoulders as they play video games just to say, "You see that man? He just died. He's dead, and his family will mourn."

Games are games. When I used to blow Quake soldiers up over a modem connection, I didn't think of them as real human beings -- because they're not. I didn't suddenly get scared. I didn't suddenly realize that the world is such an evil place. I didn't suddenly come to grips with the violent and stupid nature of mankind. I was a kid playing a game, innocently.

By taking the game away from the child, and saying that you're doing it "so he can have a childhood", that's essentially admitting to the child that the world isn't that great of a place to be. That's much worse than just letting him play the game.

Re:You get to be an innocent child ONCE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661761)

Heh...I went to House of 1,000 Corpses (which I walked out on half-way through). When the movie was over, a dad and mom walked out with their (roughly) 10-year old son. (I was waiting for my friends to finish watching the movie.)

I couldn't belive it.

My two nephews (1)

cOdEgUru (181536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661395)

My 10 year old nephew started kicking my arse in Halo around three years ago when I got my xbox. My seven year old nephew started around two years ago doing the same (but albeit in a lesser amount of frags) on Halo and Halo 2 as well. They love coming over to my place during the vacation, and understandably my sister and my brother in law dont enjoy it as much :)

The 10 year old does kick all of our collective asses on pretty much any game we tend to play. Its no wonder I rarely play online, I am humiliated just enough at home.

On the other hand, another one of my nephews never really caught on to gaming despite having a Gameboy which sits alone, that is till he found a Wii.

What I'm doing (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661397)

I'm keeping the Manhunt cd images for my kids in case the game's outlawed :)

More seriously, although I'm not planning on having kids in the near future (I need to get laid first!), I don't think there would be any problems with regards to violent games if there's a supply of good non-violent ones. Not necessarily games absolutely devoid of any conflict, but could be either those cartoonish games like Psychonauts, or even realistic sports, racing, or flight games. By the time they actually want to play violent games they'll probably be ready for those. I remember I wasn't really comfortable playing Doom when it first came out, and given the choice I rather played something else.

Duh (4, Insightful)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661403)

"How old is 'old enough' to start fragging?"

When they're mature enough to handle it with the realization that it's not real life.

What, you expected a number? Sucker.

"But I don't want him to know that yet. " (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661407)

Yet you are going to send him to work his ass off in order to get a place in the modern wold of a dog eat dog working life. When he is going to learn ? On college grad day ?

Hmm... (4, Funny)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661417)

"Gamers are getting older"? That's not news, time runs forwards. It'd be more surprising if gamers were getting younger, and I'm damned if I want to go through puberty again.... backwards.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661753)

I'm damned if I want to go through puberty again.... backwards.
Imagine that! Your gajimbas suddenly rise back into your body, and the next thing you know you're singing soprano in the school choir!

Just Get Involved With Your Kids (2, Interesting)

Prototerm (762512) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661425)

I've been a gamer since the days of the original Wolfenstein 3D, and when I had a son, I decided to use the video games in my collection to teach him a few things: like the consequences of your actions, thinking through problems, and *not* killing civilians indiscriminately. I chose games that had a definite right and wrong about them (and yeah, I'm of that generation that believes World War Two was about right and wrong, so a few of those titles were in there), or about thinking (the original Deus Ex, for example).

Unfortunately, my son quickly learned that there were cheat codes out there, so a lot of my hopes at a learning experience went out the window.

There are some games I keep away from him, such as the Carmageddon and Grand Theft series, along with the ever-popular Postal series.

Every step of the way, I know what he's playing, and we talk about it. We don't play against each other because the one time we did he kicked my butt. But otherwise, we're on the same wavelength. We generally play the same games, and talk the same language about them, even though he's 40 years younger than I am.

Games are no more violent than television, and in one way, they're less violent, because when playing a game, the kid is at least in some control. The parent just has to pick the games, and stay involved with the kids. Neither computers nor televisions are baby sitters, and parents who use them as such get the ba****ds they deserve.

But I'm still not gonna let him play Postal -- not until he reaches 65. There have to be *some* limits, you know!

The time to worry is... (1)

heretic108 (454817) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661429)

...when you're spring-cleaning their rooms, and you find the RPGs under their beds, the Uzis and Glocks in the closet underneath their sweaters, and the C4 explosive and detonators in the back of their socks and underwear drawers.

But, since you as parents are giving them a healthy regular slice of quality time, nurturing their emotional development, encouraging their self-esteem, and especially creating a happy, balanced, loving life for your and your significant other, and healing your issues as they arise, you'll never have to deal with such a worrying scenario, will you. You can set your kids loose on GTA and worse without a worry in the world.

OTOH, if you're sticking to a job you hate, voting in fucktard politicians, missing your kids' school/sport events, sitting on unresolved issues with your SO, putting money above love and [c]overtly taking it all out on your kids, then you'd better not let them near anything that has a CPU in it.

Re:The time to worry is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661537)

I just have to say one thing... What the fuck do RPGs have to do with it? Don't tell me you're one of those nut jobs that thinks D&D makes kids kill people?

Re:The time to worry is... (1)

cyberkreiger (463962) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661669)

Rocket Propelled Grenade.

As a grown-up kid gamer. (1)

KoldKompress (1034414) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661431)

I'm 18, I just turned 18 in March. I've spent most of my life playing violent video games. First games I've played were Doom and Command and Conquer. I've played Quake, Unreal Tournament and all sorts of games. My Dad used to play most of these games with me, and was quite encouraging. The only game I've ever been told I can't play was Postal, when I was about 9 years old.

And to reference what a previous poster wrote that "Males between 15-25 tend to be aggressive" I don't think it's just men. For example, my entire family play (Or have played) counter-strike! That's me, my three sisters (16-11), my Dad and my Mum.

I don't think violent video games are as big a taboo here in England, we certainly don't have any Jack Thompsons roaming around. I'm pretty sure with my history, if his beliefs were truth, I'd be a psychopathic killer.

Because I'm the Parent, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661435)

AND I SAID SO!

Why? I Don't need a reason why! If you don't like it you can GO TO YOUR ROOM WITHOUT DINNER!

300, man (1)

smchris (464899) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661445)

To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, "Europe provides the money, Asia manufactures the goods, the U.S. provides the soldiers. That's globalization." Geez, not letting your kids play FPS is like packing them off to school wearing berets.

The only morality that matters in the U.S. is religious (because it is said that atheists can't have a morality) and the only religion that matters in the mainstream media is evangelical and evangelicals already have their own "swept away" FPS where your victims convert or die. So it isn't _whether_ your kids play FPS, it is _why_ they play FPS.

And wasn't it Bowling for Columbine where they said half the victims were head shots and FPS were where they acquired their considerable skills? Your kid gets drafted into the imperial legion and looks like a fool because he hasn't had the advantage of practice on FPS how are you going to feel?

Convince me I'm wrong and those _aren't_ the mainstream memes of 21st century America.

These "aging" parents are now 40ish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661447)

and PC's and the accompanying violent games were never around in their childhood.

Playing cowboys & indians or cops and robbers or any board game (you all do know what those are right?) hardly compares with the video violence of today.

Sure everyone will trot out some psycho anal retort about parenting or that kids get it earlier today but do they? Do they really get to develop as kids? The cartoons i watched were CLEARLY cartoons. The games I played were really games.

The violence i watched was COMEDIC. That wiley coyote never got the road runner was funny because of totally outragousness of the violence.

At the end of the day the "violent" games we played were risk, statego, contigo, hardly awenspiring violence. If you were lucky your friends had and atari or version there of. You ever try watching 8 bit violent games? Oh wait there werent really any and the few that did require you to kill off your foe were hardly life like or realistic.

They were CLEARLY cartoon in nature.

So yeah i restrict what my kid plays and what he does on the PC. We play scrabble and risk and stratego. He loves them. He's mad that I wont let him play warcraft or WoW...so im depriving him. He also doesnt get to play Unreal or Doom even though he can spend a few minutes watching me. Even his PS2 games are pretty tame.

So what. I'm his parent. I'm the decider and I AM the king of world .

With luck I will raise him to get it that playing games isn't about violence but about fun and to remember that when playing ANY game.

Gaming Parent (1)

jackspayed (1086009) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661473)

I'm a 25 year old gamer (avid since NES). I have a 6yr old gaming son. Here's my take on this subject. I grew up playing the most controversial games ever created - Mortal Kombat, Night Trap, Leisure Suit Lary, Doom - just off the top of my head. But they were'nt my only mainstay as a gamer. Hundreds of other "kid friendly" titles occupied countless hours more of my time. Fast forward to today... My son is playing all of todays "oh my God, this game is too violent!" titles. The difference is? Nothing really... better graphics thats about all. The only limit I put on what game he can play is 1) Over the top "foul" language. Afterall he's 6 and runs around repeating just about everything he hears. 2) If it freaks ME out while playing (to this day he wont touch DOOM3). As a parent if you let your kids play violent video games - go for it - the games havent gotten any MORE violent than they've ever were. They dont exploit women any more than they ever did. They dont cause any more delusional re-enactments than ever (who hasnt gone to school and pretended to be in a game or movie or comic book with your schoolmates?).The only thing thats changed in games is the graphics. At the risk of sounding old - VERY few revolutionary or controversial titles are ever released. I swear I've played the newest, bloodiest, most exploitive game before... except the graphics sucked. The problem isnt and hasnt been the games - its been the parents.

You Played Violent Games - Why Can't Your Kids? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661475)

Because I'm a soulless killing machine conditioned to shoot policemen on sight by Grand Theft Auto, with marksmanship trained to a level that would put the navy seals to shame by Halo.

Supervision (1)

asbestospiping (607061) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661483)

I have to say, I think it is all about supervision, I have sat down with a 6 year old and played GTA3, its not about killing people, its about being able to drive around in cars, doing mad jumps. I would not let him play it on his own, due to what he might find, in exactly the same way I wont send him out to the park or the shop on his own, I already know there are nasty things out there, just like in the game, and I guide him to where he is safe. Most kids only like the blood and gore because it is generally taboo, I hope that when he starts to see that his friends are seeing it as a big deal, he wont.

Anecdote time. (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661497)

When I was volunteering at a computer shop while in highschool, a guy comes to the shop. He way taller than me (and I'm 6') and has huge muscles, tattoos, leather jacket with no arms, and just generally scary. He holds his computer out and says "Please fix this." After the shock, we do. Later, he talks about video games and how he doesn't want his son playing the violent ones, and asks us for recommendations.

After more shock, I realized that just because it was how he grew up doesn't mean he wants his son to grow up the same way.

I think people that don't want their kids to play the same violent games that they played are responding to a subconscious knowledge of how the games affected their outlook on life. It's totally natural to want to protect your kids from the problems of your own childhood.

I think kids need a certain amount of knowledge of violence and such simply to prepare and protect them when they encounter it, be it a bully in middle school or a fight over a girl in highschool, etc. It helps to know when to stand and when to run, and how to do each properly. Since there are 2 ways to get the knowledge, first-hand and second-hand, I'd prefer they get it second-hand as much as possible.

Re: Why Can't My Kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661499)

HEAD SHOT

Protecting, sheltering, smothering and ignorance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661501)

I want my children to understand why blowing someones brains out is wrong and I trust them to make up their own minds. Video games may form a part of that epiphany.

<sarcasm>Besides, an exposed mammary gland is far more corrupting to US youth than seeing someone perish in a full-on gore fest. I thought the Christian right had already established that?</sarcasm>

History (2, Insightful)

ReinisFMF (893095) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661521)

The Lego Company, it seems, has a policy of not producing toys that replicate 20th century weapons. "You can have swords, and you can have laser guns in space, but no actual 20th century guns," Anderson says. So his four children can play games like Halo, since it contains only futuristic, fantasy war, where you're killing only green- or blue-blooded aliens. The same goes for Roman swordplay titles.
Well, this reminded me of how I treat history. I can't resist thinking about it as something that happened in a cartoon. I know that people had basically the same problems as we do. They were as egoistic as we are, there were wars and stuff... But it _feels_ that all of it was some kind of a story. While reading history books back in school, I never ever really passionately thought about what those poor people had to experience. It almost seems as if Time smooths all sharp edges of human history. Or is it just ourselves who are so immersed in our pesky little problems?

Correct Age for Video Games? (1)

callistra.moonshadow (956717) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661551)

I'm an avid Guild Wars player. So is my spouse. My elder daughter (6) has expressed interest in playing. I've let her move one of my toons around and help pick clothing but I have yet to acquiesce to her her desire to have her own account and let her play. She is rather good at computer games but they consist of things like "Barbie and the Twelve Dancing Princesses, Barbie Explorer" etc. These two are examples of first person explorers as opposed to shooters. I'm leaning towards laying off of letting her join us in our online VR until she has some level of emotional maturity to deal with teenagers and adults that she might bump into (in the case of an MMORPG). The violent imagery is also not something I want her to participate in although she has often stayed and watched us kill monsters and asked questions about it. I must admit that at least in Guild Wars there is no blood and guts imagery that is very evident in some of our Xbox console games. She has also played Shrek II on the Xbox with the the two of us and at that time avoided combat of any type and collected coins and did non-violent types of activity.

I guess it is really best to simply gauge emotional maturity and also ask your child directly what they would like to do. In the case of online games I'd add even more caution due to the risks associated with such a venue.

My two cents...

Cally

speeding (1)

CheeseTroll (696413) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661573)

I go over the speed limit quite often when driving, and generally trust my own judgement. Does that mean I'll condone the same behavior when my son learns to drive? Hell, no.

I don't know about anyone else but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661589)

When I was 5 and saw someone playing Mortal Kombat, I didn't go and try to emulate it.
It gave me Nightmares. I kept thinking Scorpion was going to come to my bedside, pull off the mask, and eat my head.

In my opinion, Non-Gory games are far worse then those with mature content
Mature content will scare young children, Not make them violent.
But I played Zelda when I was 4 and liked to play "fighting with wooden sticks and trash can lids as our swords and shields".
But of course, No great injury came out of that, aside from a few smacked heads.

As for sexual content, I was oblivious as a child, as most children are. My father told me I once watched a porno with him and replied "These people are stupid, I want to watch Power Rangers"

I simply figure that if I am to have kids, I'd let them play whatever they seek out. Keeping an eye on them to make sure they don't break their legs when they re-enact Mario, Of course.
At the same time I would try to keep more mature games....someplace else, so they don't get curious and scare themselves shitless, I don't believe my mother enjoyed sitting in my room and watching me so I could fall asleep each night.

But if they where old enough to seek it out on their own, and know the details of the game, then they would probably be old enough to play it without trying to emulate it.

Back on sexual content, If they aren't oblivious, then it's probably time to let em blossom anyway. Sexual content in games is better then letting them run wild on the internet anyway. At least games are likely to contain only legal stuff. Best to let them bang chicks in GTA7 then let them brose to DonkeyFuckers.com

What about parents who don't play at all? (2, Interesting)

netbuzz (955038) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661615)

I particularly liked the "Lego Rule." ... Also, I have "this friend" who's about to turn 50, has never played a video game in his life, and has three young children who are soon to graduate from noggin.com to the real thing. I'm not, I mean he's not, going to be one of those anything-goes guys. Any advice for this type?

http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/1360 4 [networkworld.com]
   

GOW (1)

IX SICK ECHO XI (1085601) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661641)

I've been playing Gear Of War for a while, and have notice how many young gamers are on these days, and I ask myself where are their parents, and why are they playing a mature rated game 17+, when most these kids are from the ages of 7 to 13.

Isn't the nature of parenthood hypocritical? (3, Interesting)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661655)

That's not a troll, really. The most obvious and ageless example is sex. We did as much as we could as soon as we could get away with it. Now, as hypocrytical, older parents, we can't stand the concept of our precious little darlings doing the nasty at ... well ... whatever age it was that we first wanted to. (Actual age citation omitted so that I don't draw too much negative response. God knows that the ages of kids getting naked and freaky on their webcams is sufficiently low that it may never be mentioned in polite company; adults just don't want to hear about that stuff.)

It's the same for alcohol. We got drunk on our ass at 16, most of us got away with it, and we think we were *special* and could handle it. Our kids? Those morons couldn't handle a sip of ceremonial wine before they turn 21.

Video games. Driving fast. Ditching school. Going out in the woods with some dynamite and blowing shit up. (OK, that last one was pretty personal, I guess.) No matter the subject, we simply don't think our kids can do the things we did. We're hypocrites. All parents are and always have been.

Adults have no respect for children so we treat them differently than we still think we should have been treated when we were their age.

Hypocrisy and lack of respect from parents towards children? This is news? Is this surprising to anyone?

Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661705)

Because I said so that's why! Now go to your room!

Thompson??? (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661781)

"On the Wired site, Clive Thompson has up an article

Is this Jack's non-evil brother who derives a healthy, cathartic enjoyment of occasionally playing violent video games?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>