Boz Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 I don't see how a warning label is a step closer to anything, except not letting little kids play something they probably shouldn't anyway. Yep.. it has been proven that in some individuals (not everyone) some aggression can be noticed when playing violent games. But in essence, the bigger problem is a proven fact that violent games desensitize young people to violence. That's a much bigger problem. It's been overdue to start preventing kids in getting games they shouldn't be playing. This message just sends a stronger message to parents, so parents will control and prevent their kids from playing games they shouldn't be playing. The amount of 10 and 11 year olds playing Modern Warfare 2 is a very clear example how bad parents are in the States. I am pretty sure it' s because parents think it's nothing so they allow them. If you put warnings like this on games they 'll think twice. I'm all for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memphis Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 Yep.. it has been proven that in some individuals (not everyone) some aggression can be noticed when playing violent games. But in essence, the bigger problem is a proven fact that violent games desensitize young people to violence. That's a much bigger problem. It's been overdue to start preventing kids in getting games they shouldn't be playing. This message just sends a stronger message to parents, so parents will control and prevent their kids from playing games they shouldn't be playing. The amount of 10 and 11 year olds playing Modern Warfare 2 is a very clear example how bad parents are in the States. I am pretty sure it' s because parents think it's nothing so they allow them. If you put warnings like this on games they 'll think twice. I'm all for that. What in God's name is wrong with a young child playing modern warfare 2? I do not see the problem. If you said Maunhunt or GTA I could understand. However those studies have STRONGLY linked reaction to the roles played in the games and not if it contains violence or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey13 Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 Ah we do love to repeat the mistakes of the past. Previous things that, at the time were thought to, have caused violent and antisocial behaviour. Dates are just rough guesses but you get the idea. Rock and Roll music: 1950+ (Society will crumble with this corruption of youth) Heavy Metal: 1970+ (Yeah we all ended up worshipping Satan) Film and Video Violence: 1980+ (I want to kill people now because I saw Rambo as a child) Video Games: 1995(?)+ (I want to shoot everyone in the head and steal cars) Here's an idea politicians. Instead of trying to tell me how I will be altered by these things, which aren't real, why don't you stop being such lying, conniving, two-faced, stealing gits. Anyone else think that they should come with a warning sticker. Real life people who represent us and are supposed to be pillars of society and role models but are usually conniving little morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lalalawawawa Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 It's been overdue to start preventing kids in getting games they shouldn't be playing. This message just sends a stronger message to parents, so parents will control and prevent their kids from playing games they shouldn't be playing. The amount of 10 and 11 year olds playing Modern Warfare 2 is a very clear example how bad parents are in the States. I am pretty sure it' s because parents think it's nothing so they allow them. If you put warnings like this on games they 'll think twice. You have a lot bigger problems than games for your kids' ****ups. EDIT: Let your kid beat the crap out of some other kid. Let him/her get beaten up. Let him break his leg, let him kill a cat. Let him get drunk. Let him kiss a girl of a similar age. Let him watch pr0n. Let him do crazy stuff. Let your kid be a kid, for ****s sake. EDIT2: I can't believe how some parents are trying to "protect" their kids. Hey, its your child, I don't give a **** if you **** up his life, but seriously, exactly what are you trying to protect him from... life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 Yep.. it has been proven that in some individuals (not everyone) some aggression can be noticed when playing violent games. But in essence, the bigger problem is a proven fact that violent games desensitize young people to violence. That's a much bigger problem. It's been overdue to start preventing kids in getting games they shouldn't be playing. This message just sends a stronger message to parents, so parents will control and prevent their kids from playing games they shouldn't be playing. The amount of 10 and 11 year olds playing Modern Warfare 2 is a very clear example how bad parents are in the States. I am pretty sure it' s because parents think it's nothing so they allow them. If you put warnings like this on games they 'll think twice. I'm all for that. So requiring a valid ID which proves you are over the age of 18 is not enough of an indicator to parents that this material is mature? What about the two labels on the box, several labels in the pamphlet and the one on the disc itself? Or what about the one that appears on the screen as the game is being played? Or, before any of this has happened, the several gigantic signs, pamphlets and posters in most any game shop that state the rating system and how it works? Parents have been literally slapped in the face with what is and is not appropriate for what ages and yet they still buy this stuff for their children. Another label won't help and the fact that games are so far the only form of entertainment to want to go so far as to suggest an actual link to violence is just pathetic. Scaring people like that is pointless and unnecessary. There are two ways it can go: 1) People ignore it and nothing comes of the situation. 2) Law suits, returns and tons of action taken by the media and the public now that games are supposedly "linked" to causing violent tendencies in children. They'll be a wonderful and now defenseless target to morons like Jack Thompson or angry parents who weren't "warned sooner". In my opinion it will either be pointless or damaging to the industry. I see no benefit in such an action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 Ah we do love to repeat the mistakes of the past. Previous things that, at the time were thought to, have caused violent and antisocial behaviour. Dates are just rough guesses but you get the idea. Rock and Roll music: 1950+ (Society will crumble with this corruption of youth) Heavy Metal: 1970+ (Yeah we all ended up worshipping Satan) Film and Video Violence: 1980+ (I want to kill people now because I saw Rambo as a child) Video Games: 1995(?)+ (I want to shoot everyone in the head and steal cars) Here's an idea politicians. Instead of trying to tell me how I will be altered by these things, which aren't real, why don't you stop being such lying, conniving, two-faced, stealing gits. Anyone else think that they should come with a warning sticker. Real life people who represent us and are supposed to be pillars of society and role models but are usually conniving little morons. You forgot rap. This really won't make much difference in places like Target, Meijer, etc., any more than "Warning: Explicit Lyrics" makes a difference. Pretty much only Wal-Mart shies away from it. This is pretty much an election year "we care about kids" stunt, anything more than this will be (and has already been) shot down in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts