GameGirl.com

Agree, video games are fun, people shouldnt blame video games, they should blame their parents for not having enough care and control of their children.

Lets go with

Insomniac
Naughty Dog
Infinity Ward

i actually made a thread about this at some forum. it was appropriately titled "My Rant" if you want to read it, here it is in it's full glory:

I've been here for a bit, starting PSP General really. Now mostly in PS3 General, though. These two boards share something though: people who just always want more. A new update is released (yes 2.40 inspired this rant). Sony listens to us and adds features we've asked for. But people have to cry and whine, just because something's not supported yet. Then some, who don't even know what they're talking about, talk as if they could fix it all, given the opportunity.

I think it's safe the say the majority of these people are younger, who do not understand how things work yet. Nothing is ever released perfectly. Like they say, Rome wasnt built in a day. Afterall, gaming's about playing games. Not about trophies (which I do like anyways), and in game music. Those are not what gaming consoles a success. It's the games. Yet we still have people pleading for these things on the release dates of triple A games like MGS4 and GTAIV.

Then there's those people with threads on how their PS3 stopped working, from overheating. If you were to ask most (read: not all) of these people, they would tell you they had their PS3 in a confined space, without room to breathe. Not acknowledging the manual or any other reference, they still put it there, and they are now blaming Sony because of the consequence of their dumb actions.

Which somehow, brings me to fanboys. They really make me wonder, what has become of the gaming community? Where we outright bash another console once we feel any pressure from it. It's from all sides really, Nintendo, Xbox, and Playstation. I myself, in a way, am a fanboy. I defend the PS3, as many still judge it by it's once hefty price tag. But, I can also admit the 360 has some really good games, and the PS3 can still do quite a bit to catch up in areas. The Wii too. I have one myself, and it's a great console to have around when playing with others. But it's not that fun to play alone, as it's does not have MY preference of games.

Speaking of which, why do people think THEIR opinion on something justifies it to be added the the "change immediately" list? It's your preference. Some people have to realise that, and come out of their "all about me" phase. Just because they dont like it, doesnt mean everybody else hates it as well.
What's your take on all things mentioned?

dammit i copied and pasted the wrong thread. fuck. i was so sure that was it i didnt bother checking. ill try to find the right one. haha! i found it:

Gaming is entertainment. Some games represent themselves as story heavy. They're almost like movies, you could say. Movies, like games, also get ratings. You can tell if you should or shouldn't be watching the movie or playing the game, depending on the rating it has received.

Yet how often do we hear of parents complaining about their children watching a movie that was unsuitable for them? They would never buy the movie for their children if they found it inappropriate, and if they happened to watch the movie at a theatre, it was the theatre's / children's fault.

My question is why is it so different when a minor plays a game that isn't rated for his age group? Ratings for games are not hidden, and I'm sure many parents know about them. For a minor to get a game, they have to have an adult with them to confirm the purchase. So, the parent is responsible for everything to do with the minor and the game. They confirmed the purchase, going against the rating.

Why do some guardians also tell the story as if they were never informed. They tell it as if they were lied to, as if they were promised something suitable for the minor's age. Like Mass Effect. FOX told their audience about it as if it was open for all ranges of the audience to purchase, as if there was no restraint on who could, and who couldn't purchase the game. They were complaining about small nudity. This is why I mentioned movies early, actually. How often can you see partial nudity in PG-13 films? It's not that rare. Also, games are animated. They're not real. It should not be as big of a deal as nudity in movies, as the parts being shown are real, and can more easily represent the respective gender's body.

Games having age restraints for a reason, and they're enforced. It's pretty easy to get into a movie which you are too young to see, as I've done it a few years ago or so. Yet, when I tried to buy a game then, I was obligated to have a parent accompany me.

What do you think? Are games more thoroughly enforced than movies? Do you think the guardians have any room to complain about their children being exposed to inappropriate content games that aren't intended for their age group?

thats the question i was asking lol.

i think the problem is the media still views games as a source of entertainment mainly for kids, thus they think kids can get their hands on any game they want.

yep!

I think the problem is that everyone thinks "not my kid" when they buy the game for them. People bring their kids to R rated movies and say things like "oh, well, my daughter loves scary movies! She can handle them!" or "my son knows the difference between real and make-believe, so it'll be okay." You see it all the time. So the same thing is probably true for games. No one wants to believe their kid is capable of snapping and killing someone, so they buy the game for them. And then when things end badly, they have a nice little excuse to use. It's irritating. Few people actually respect ratings of any sort.

There's not too much I can say right now that hasn't been said except I agree with everyone here. I remember when GTA first came out on the PS2 and the first thing I thought was "why would someone make a game like that?" But I went to my nephew's house to go babysit him and he was playing the game. When my sister got home I talked to her about the game and she just shrugged her shoulders because she felt that it wasn't that big of a deal. I was mad at first and I wanted to take the game away from him. Then I decided to stop judging it and play to see what it was about.

Of course, I got hooked on the game and felt relieved that I wasn't a hero trying to protect someone from a bad guy. Driving around the tank to see how many stars you can get is pretty satisfying. So then I decided to explain to my nephew that it was just a game and he can't do what he sees in the game. Well, my nephew is violent in nature because his parents (yes, both of them) don't take the time to discipline him and it makes me angry when he tries to do things like one day he went into the kitchen and grabbed a steak knife to stab this kid. His mom kept saying that he's confused. I was so mad when she wouldn't do something about it.

My mom even tried to straighten him out now that I'm away from home. I visited home last year, and told him to be good and not get violent, but of course my mom called me like three weeks ago telling me that my nephew was sent to the hospital. My lesson: if you don't make it your business to be a part of your child's life, how do you know what they're capable of? I'm not saying that a video game was the reason for my nephew's behavior, that was my sister and she took his games away for that too. It's the parents fault for not counseling their children but it's the kids' fault for making the choice. If they want to go out acting all wild and crazy like they don't need to respect the law, then why should they be given a pardon when they blame a videogame?

One day I was thinking about that when me and my friend got in an argument about this. He was claiming that the only games he play is pac man and dig-dug because they're not violent like GTA. I agree that they don't see violent, but Pacman was eating the ghosts in the game...isn't that kind of like cannibalism? I know they're ghosts, but the idea is still there. In dig-dug, you used an air pump to blow up the animals in your way, so that's still putting the idea in your head that it's okay because it's just a game, right? Of course he came up with a lot of reasons why it was okay for those games, but I just couldn't see it: to me, they're all videogames so it's the persons' fault for committing an act of crime.