To be amazed at average parental stance on 18 video games?

[superstarheartbreaker]

I was on a thread about Call of Duty whereby a 12 year old wanted it. The parent didn't want to get it as it is an 18.
The parent was told that they should get it as everyone is playing it and video games don't cause violence. Aibu to believe that this is not the flipping point?
I think the point it that it normalises violence. Also it encourages teens to so end hours gaming rather than doing genuinely active sports. Also it is an 18 therefore 12 year olds are too young.
The pressure exists from kids only because other patents allow this. Get firm people!

When I have got seriously into a video game and played it a lot, it's invaded my dreams but I don't play violent games so the dreams aren't frightening. But they are really realistic - I am in the game, I am the character.

I can't imagine that COD or any other first person game is any different. Saying 'it's only a game' is lazy and naive.

Pipbin- to which the only possible answer would be "Well, you don't appear to know how to, so somebody has to intervene".

To which the response is a punch in the face from the parent.

My brother is an avid gamer. They are not harmless. They are getting more and more realistic and yes you do dream the game after a while. So you as a parent have to take a responsibility. Online gaming is a whole different story. Again my brother is often shocked that kids are on some of these. The language for one thing is strong and people play across time lines chatting it really isn,t a safe environment for a 13/14 with no parental control.

OddFodd totally agree!

I don't think anyone is saying that violent games influence ALL children in a detrimental way. I think the main thing that research shows is that for SOME children, prolonged exposure to violent video games (ie a few hours at a time) DOES actually desensitise them to violence and reduces their ability to empathise. The type of children we're talking about have perhaps a pre-existing capacity to act in a violent way themselves due to very poor parental involvement/guidance and perhaps also coming from a household where violence is the norm amongst family members. Such children, when allowed to play violent games for hours at a time, HAVE been shown to be adversely affected by the games (not just by the family situation on its own).

I think research has also shown that such games also affect YOUNGER children's (I.e. Under age 11) ability to develop empathy at a normal rate, and to desensitise them to violence.

The problem is that the kids who are most at risk from being affected by such games are precisely the ones who are likely to be bought them by their parents. It's ironic that the rest of the kids (those actually LEAST susceptible to being affected by violent games) are the ones least likely to be bought them by their parents.

So what can be done? Not much really, I don't think.

Pipbin no it wasn't actually. I do research what they play and it started with the dark knight (film) and other things including games crept in and he became obsessional. He adopted a 'persona' when very ill.
Sadly when he was in a secure unit (and it housed children who had murdered) I had a phone call stopping my visit due to a game given to him- this was the same place that removed staples from magazines I took him in. Turned out it was a nurse who took in COD. Ds1 was 14 :(
I have to be very careful about tv - he fixates on things and limit things by using diversion. If I said no he would do it anyway.

Wannabe that doesn't surprise me. We had Senior OT do a current affairs session each day using the Sun as material. It would have been funny that he blacked out the shape of the underwear on the page 3 model with a marker pen if it had not have been a PICU unit housing very very damaged kids who had been over sexualised, abused had violent sexual fantasies and also some young girls with severe eating disorders and self harm/suicidal ideation.

This thread moves quickly. One thing I must point out is that rape does not feature in GTA or any other mainstream game I know. The rape scene people take about involves a cannibalistic cult who like to abduct and eat people (GTA, despite its realistic graphics, doesn't take itself too seriously). There was another controversy where people unaffiliated with the developers exploited the game's code to lock another player's character into an animation where the modder's avatar humps them. It's puerile, obviously, but it's more about being an annoying, immature idiot than anything else. I'm pretty sure it's been patched out now. You're well within your rights to be offended by GTA and it certainly gives you plenty of opportunities to be offended, so it's best to attack it for what it is rather than what it isn't.

Secondly, in response to
How anyone can respect a man who plays those awful games with rape in is beyond me too. It would be a complete deal breaker for me.
It is perfectly possible to appreciate and enjoy a game, a movie or a novel while acknowledging that parts of it are problematic. The general fan reaction on the channels I frequent to the torture scene was that is was a terrible scene made up only to drum up controversy and publicity, and that's from the fans of the game.

I think the line between adult and child material has been really blurred over my lifetime.

There is no watershed on TV any more so children end up seeing inappropriate stuff like burlesque on Britain's Got Talent or violence when flicking through TV channels. Youtube advertising is ageless and can range from the annoying and innocent to clip from a music video. How some music videos don't end up being classed as soft porn blows my mind.
I've seen 18 movies and video game print ads at public places like bus shelters (which I don't remember as as child?) My children know as a result of these print ads that GTA and Saints Row are not cartoons .
By the way why was the movie certificate 12 changed to 12a ? Should an "a" be added to 15 next?

No, no man who appreciates even parts of this sort of shit is worth a second glance. To buy this shit would make him a complete loser IMO.

No, no man who appreciates even parts of this sort of shit is worth a second glance. To buy this shit would make him a complete loser IMO.

That is a lot of people's husbands and partners you are talking about there.

That's a lot of people on here full stop.

Well, pfft, that's one person's opinion. I have spent the best part of this evening grinding people's faces off with a skyhook (Bioshock - yes, I'm a little behind the times) but I don't think that makes me a worse person. Or a loser.

I'm not stupid enough to let my DCs play 18-rated games; I think the opportunity to not warp my own mind has already passed.

Would agree with what has been said above - I find that playing the same game for long periods leads to dreams about it; the Tetris ones were considerably less disturbing than the Resident Evil ones. Not something you want to inflict on your kids.

I'm curious whether parents on this thread with younger teens restrict their children's access to the Internet on phones and on tablets/computers etc.

In my experience a lot of otherwise responsible parents are happy to 'trust' their children not to search inappropriate material such as porn or violent images on their phones. I think seeing pictures of, for example, real life beheadings, would be more damaging than playing COD etc. ( not that I let my kids play COD when they were younger)

My DC didn't have Internet enabled phones until they were 16/17 and our home network has always had parental restrictions. My nieces and nephews have unrestricted access to the Internet on their phones and they are aged between 8 and 14 . I find that shocking.

By the way why was the movie certificate 12 changed to 12a ? Should an "a" be added to 15 next?

It wasn't. It is a new level in between PG and 12. A 12 you have to be 12 but for a 12a you can see it when under 12 if accompanied by an adult.

We restrict internet access too (although one are a bit younger anyway) but I have been shocked at the number of kids with unrestricted access. I have had a couple of situations where DS1 has come to me after going to a friend's to play and told me he'd left the room because they were looking at things on the internet (mostly music videos with explicit lyrics I think).

Again, the parents seem to think they're cool because they allow it.

My DS is in year 6. He is one of two children in the year that does not have GTA. He knows all about it though as the kids talk about it.

Schools do not approve of you tube hence ds is not allowed on it and it is blocked on his settings.

This is also made clear when he goes to other houses.

Schools do not approve of YouTube

Bullshit. I use YouTube all the time at school.

Schools do not approve of you tube

Do you mean your DSs school specifically? We use it as a teaching tool but you do have to vet it carefully and use ad blocker.

I honestly think parents feel so powerless and fatigued, but they also think their child will be at a disadvantage and therefore more vulnerable if they're not involved in this media. I am baulking at the potential trauma to my fairly sheltered child when she is inadvertently exposed to vile media concepts.

These sorts of problems were all predictedbypeople who cared but they were derided and vilified by quixotic liberalism.

Well ds's school do not approve of it and ban it at the school yes.

I have it on my settings so occasionally he is allowed to use it for e.g. research to do with homework.

Really good question by oigiveitback.

How many of the parents who ban these games also limit internet access, because the internet is a far more dangerous place than the games you are banning.

Of course the internet can be a dangerous place. We could start a whole new discussion on that. I think that's a separate issue though. The Internet in general doesn't have age restrictions on it, it's up to parents to put their own measures in place to protect their DC from unsuitable sites.

But these games (which is what the thread is about) do have age restrictions which many parents ignore, any why? Just for a quiet life? Just because you don't want your child to kick up a fuss about it? Is that really a good enough reason?

I think many think they're 'just games', aimed more at children and can't possibly have the same themes and content as 18-rated films, see upthread for an example of where GTA was permitted but a schlocky 15-rated horror film wasn't.

Indeed jcdenton much like how some see Family guy etc, 'its a cartoon so must be for kids'