violent video games
  • Do games of a violent nature really make some one go out and shoot some one? my opinion is that if they are that way inclined then playing violent video games will not make one bit of difference to whether they will go out and kill some one.
    there's been a big kick of over hear when GTA IV got released about the violent nature of the game,why i don't really no nobody said a word about COD4 and games like it,is this because it's a war game and war is flashed up on the screens every day of the week that no one really cares about it but if it's a game involving mowing folk down with cars,drug dealing and shooting a few people now and again :D every ones up in arms about it,at the end of the day its a game just because i play violent video games dosent mean I'm going to go out steal a car sell some drugs and then shoot some one now doest it just like if a play a golf game dosent mean I'm going to go out by myself a set of clubs and do 18 holes on my local golf course.
    But some one did get stabbed while queueing for GTA IV.:o
  • I've lost count of the number of studies that have been done on this- some say they will warp little Timmy's/ Judy's mind and turn them into hardened criminals while others say "it's just a game- lighten the **** up".

    Myself, I'm of the second persuasion. If a game is going to influence someone to do something they shouldn't then that person likely had some sort of mental instability to begin with. That being said, while I do disagree with the ones that say it will influence the kids, I still believe those that are under the age it is rated for should not play it UNLESS the parents ok it.
  • My response to this issue is always the same. A parent should always have knowledge of what their kids are playing. Now, I don't mean harping on the kid night and day, but talking with their kids is best when it comes to violent videogames.

    I've known one or two people who have had their minds skewed by violent video games, but I believe it's just a mistake of discretion.

    To be honest though, kids nowadays are becoming increasingly more violent and numbed to it. My mom works at a school with 7-11 year old children. Boys there are already forming "gangs" and girls are already forming "posees" and due to this activity they are not allowed to have more than three people gathered at one time during recess. Something of that nature never happened while I was that age, and if it was few and far between.

    My point: Parents should use their own discretion on videogames. A violent videogame is never usually the only cause of violent real time outbursts.
  • Yeah parental control is what is needed, not a ban like a lot of people have been suggesting lately...:rolleyes:
    My view has always been the same, violent videogames do not make somebody go out and shoot/stab/attack/etc someone. If somebodies going to do it then a violent videogame will not push them over the edge. A videogame is not a motive to go and do something of a violent nature, therefore if a person goes out and attacks someone "because of a videogame", then this proves that they were mentally unstable in the first place, as somebody with no motive to hurt someone, who actually does do it, could do it at any time regardless of a videogame.
  • My personal view...

    A video game, film, music or any other form of media will not effect a mentally mature person.

    on the other hand a person still deveolping charactor is effected by anything around him being it actual life (parents behavior or friends) or media (tv, games all the sort).

    I also don't agree with parents that decide that a rating is too strict for the 'kids'. If somethig is marked at 16+, this should not be shown to someone under age what ever the parent thinks.

    The above reasoning is based on the following example: My wife being a teacher and studied child psychology and behaviour, can determine something being apropriate or not much better then a parent with lower scholar level.

    I by no means think that someone is a more loving parent just cause of their intellectual level, but it helps making some choices. If you are not capable of understanding the consequences of you choices, you should stick to the markings.

    Ow and I am totally against baning of any sort. Rate the item and spread to only eligible users.

    The rating needs to be clear on what factors it is rating the media.
  • Just my 2cents worth.... its really not the games that we play. its the environment..the they are brought up. However, violent games should be for adults only as adults have cognitive decision making and understand on what is right and wrong..
  • mrv888 said:
    Just my 2cents worth.... its really not the games that we play. its the environment..the they are brought up. However, violent games should be for adults only as adults have cognitive decision making and understand on what is right and wrong..

    That's a great point. I think the environment a 'minor' is brought up in will definitely influence whether or not, for example a violent video game will make them 'copy' what they've done as a game player in real life. If you think about it, it's definitely more likely to happen to a kid brought up in a city full of gangs etc, for example. They can relate to what they're doing in say GTA, and actually probably use it in a real life situation. Where as, a child brought up in a more stable environment with no gangs and violence present in everyday situations, is more likely to know it's wrong and think again.

    I agree, the age rating for these games is there for a reason. If it says 18 that's because it really is unsuitable and maybe influencing to anyone younger.
  • It depends if you're mature enough, I wouldn't go out and buy GTA4 for an 8 year old, But if I think they're mature enough to handle basic violence, Go for it.
  • The fact is the majority of 'under-18's' are probably mature enough to handle violent video-games like GTA IV. Especially nowadays, when violent films are so easy to get hold of too. I still think the age rating is there to be respected, but if a parent thinks their child is mature enough to handle a violent video-game and buys it for them, there should be no sanctions (well not serious anyway) brought upon the parent if something did happen. As like we all agree, violent video-games do not make people go out into the streets and kill people.
  • ok here is something i found on wikipeadia about grand theft auto provoking violence

    Jack Thompson lawsuits

    Lawyer Jack Thompson has been involved in a number of attempts to get families of murder victims to hold the Grand Theft Auto series accountable for the death of their loved ones. He is currently facing permanent disbarment, and a $43,675.35 fine by the Florida Bar Association.

    On October 20, 2003, the families of Aaron Hamel and Kimberly Bede, two young people shot by teens William and Josh Buckner (who in statements to investigators claimed their actions were inspired by GTA III) filed a US$246 million lawsuit against publishers Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive Software, retailer Wal-Mart, and PlayStation 2 manufacturer Sony Computer Entertainment America. Rockstar and its parent company, Take-Two, filed for dismissal of the lawsuit, stating in U.S. District Court on October 29, 2003 that the "ideas and concepts as well as the 'purported psychological effects' on the Buckners are protected by the First Amendment's free-speech clause." The lawyer of the victims, Jack Thompson, denied that and is attempting to move the lawsuit into a state court and under Tennessee's consumer protection act. Two days later, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, and the case was closed.

    In February 2005, a lawsuit was brought upon the makers and distributors of the Grand Theft Auto series claiming the games caused a teenager to shoot and kill three members of the Alabama police force. The shooting took place in June 2003 when Devin Moore, 17 years old at the time, was brought in for questioning to a Fayette police station regarding a stolen vehicle. Moore then grabbed a pistol from one of the police officers and shot and killed him along with another officer and dispatcher before fleeing in a police car. One of Moore's attorneys, Jack Thompson, claimed it was GTA's graphic nature - with his constant playing time - that caused Moore to commit the murders, and Moore's family agrees. Damages are being sought from the Jasper branches of GameStop and Wal-Mart, the stores from which GTA III and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, respectively, were purchased and also from the games' publisher Take-Two Interactive, and the PlayStation 2 manufacturer Sony Computer Entertainment. The case is currently being heard by the same judge who presided over Moore's criminal trial, in which Moore was sentenced to death for his actions.

    In May 2008, Jack Thompson appeared via satellite on the Glenn Beck program on CNN's Headline News. Thompson mentioned Devin Moore and said regarding Grand Theft Auto III and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City "There's no doubt in my mind ... that but for Devin Moore's training on this cop killing simulator, he would not have been able to kill three cops in Fayette, Alabama who are now dead and in the ground. We are suing Take Two, Sony, Wal-Mart, and GameStop for having trained Devin Moore to kill. He had no history of violence. No criminal record."

    In September 2006, Jack Thompson brought another lawsuit, claiming that Cody Posey played the game obsessively before murdering his father Delbert Paul Posey, stepmother Tryone Schmid, and stepsister Marilea Schmid on a ranch in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The suit was filed on behalf of the victims' families. During the criminal trial, Posey's defense team argued he was abused by his father, and tormented by his stepmother. Posey was also taking Zoloft at the time of the killings. The suit alleged that were it not for his obsessive playing of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, the murders would not have taken place. Named in the suit were Cody Posey, Rockstar Games, Take-Two Interactive, and Sony. The suit asked for US$600 million in damages.
  • in Australia most violent video games are rated MA this means

    "not suitable for people under 17, those under 17 MUST be accompanied by a parent or guardian" MUST is even in capital letters on the back of the box

    if people stuck with that things should be right
  • Melinda S STAFF said:

    My point: Parents should use their own discretion on videogames. A violent videogame is never usually the only cause of violent real time outbursts.

    Very good point.... If the game has a 18 restriction visible on the box it's there for a reason. It is the parents responsibility to make sure their kids know the difference between real life and a game.

    Personally I love some mindless violence in a game..... headshots count ;)
  • SHAGGER said:
    Personally I love some mindless violence in a game..... headshots count ;)

    Remind me to never play a multiplayer shooter with you then SHAGGER.;)
  • Melinda S STAFF said:
    Remind me to never play a multiplayer shooter with you then SHAGGER.;)

    Melinda, a good shoter is an asset on any team, heh heh. Battlefield B.C. comes to mind.

    Not sure how to get my PS3 online yet but a team match sounds like a jol (Jol - Party).