Umm, I'm confused. We should not make violent video games because kids might play them.

With this logic, we should also stop making guns and beer.

Actually I just think that these violent games should be more self-aware and reflect back on what the player is doing;

Is there the same issue regulating pornography and who takes responsibility for what when it gets in the hands of underaged people? I think it's pretty much the same issue it's just that people don't make the connection because there's the stigma that games are for kids (no matter what the actual bulk of the gaming audience truely is). Didn't it used to be that the word pornography actually covered stuff like materials depicting violence as well as sex? It could all be regulated as strictly as TV and other media without stifeling creativity. It just isn't.

Quote:

Original post by kseh Is there the same issue regulating pornography and who takes responsibility for what when it gets in the hands of underaged people?

Haha, yes it is a matter of self-policing, porn films concentrate on what is marketable, what is visual they don't care how much fun their actors or actresses have. The oral sex techniques they show (fast flicking tongues) aren't what satisfies women according many sex educators such as Lou Paget. So its all b.s. quite frankly. So it ain't out to do people any favours if they learn their skills from it. Neither is the amount of 4play they show. Anyway, I don't want to be too explicit here. They don't do anyone any favours.

Ironically I read the other day someone saying that the way that games have action then cut-scenes is the same method of storytelling used in porn ;).

I'm not campaigning against / for violent or what have you games. But we have a responsibility for how games affect people in general, like MMORPGS linking to online Pizza delivery services. Can you say obese?

People are responsible for the games they make, but it's a moral, not a legal responsibility. It's up to us (or our parents, for minors) to censor our video games. That is to say, game makers are responsible for what they make, and the players are responsible for what they choose to play.

Quote:

In the real world, no parent is capable of supervising a child 24/7/365.25. Kids visit their friends' houses, they go to school, they go out, etc etc.

Absolute supervision is not a requirement of competent parenting. If a parent acts as a positive role model and teaches his/her children to make intelligent decisions, then that parent can trust his/her children to respond in a mature manner to the mountains of adult content being pushed in their faces every day; most of which is NOT comming from video games.

Unfortunetly, when parents rely on TV and video games to raise their children, the kids miss out on many of the fundemental pieces of common sense that most people take for granted. For example:
highschool is not reality.
women are not objects.
violence is bad.

When children do not have a background of moral/common sense teaching from their parents, then I think you DO need to worry about what content they are exposed to. But I don't fault the producers of the content, because most people can handle it and enjoy it for its artistic and entertainment values.

When you tell artists (in this case developers) not to make adult games because kids play them, you are catering to the lowest common denominator of our society. You certainly don't need to agree with me, but personally I would rather try and hold people up to a higher standard then continually imposing new government regulation to save stupid people from themselves;)

I think a nice middle ground that most people would agree on would be to provide V-Chip like capabilities to game consoles. Then parents can lock out games that have certain ratings or descriptors. They would know that their children would not be playing games that they deemed unfit. At least in their own house. Giving parents tools to help protect their kids would benefit everyone.

Ryan

Quote:

Original post by Xai Should people not be able to buy sexy clothes, because it might encourage underage promiscuity? ... Since there exist ways to prohibit people from gaining access to things (or so we must think or else why is there a war on drugs for just such a reason) - then it is not the creators fault when the system is less than perfect. It is the fault of the system iteself, and / or those who knowingly or accidentaly breach it.

Sexy clothes just hint at sex, whereas many games reward killing (for example). The psychological link, in terms of teaching behaviour, is far stronger in the latter case.

Regarding "ways to prohibit people from gaining access to things", I think that is exactly what it's about. If you have a decent system in place, then there's not much of a problem. However, the system is put in place by the people, and game developers are people too. They should help ensure the system works.

Quote:

Original post by Nuget5555 If a parent acts as a positive role model and teaches his/her children to make intelligent decisions, then that parent can trust his/her children to respond in a mature manner to the mountains of adult content being pushed in their faces every day; most of which is NOT comming from video games.

Unfortunately that's a naive assessment of developmental psychology. Never met a family where one kid is well-behaved and another one is a walking nightmare? The pressures of the peer group and other aspects of contemporary culture play a massive part in shaping the child's psyche, possibly more than the influence of the parents. If a parent is teaching you that "violence is bad", and tv, video games, the President, and the kids in the schoolyard are teaching you that "violence is beneficial", what are you gonna do? Everything plays its part.


In the vague hope that the reductio ad absurdum responses stop, I didn't say that we shouldn't make violent video games. I just answered the original question, which was "so should games be made in a more responsible way?".

Ever heard of MGS? this whole game is about killing and hiding from getting caught doing so.
Ever heard of Counter-Strike? This one is simply about running around killing as many guys in as small a time as possible.
Ever heard of Pokemon? This one is about kicking as many monster and tamers butts as possible, while raising your own monster skills.
Ever heard of Super Mario? This one is all about gobbling hallucinogen mushrooms and jumping on the head of innocent bystanding creatures, because they happen to get in your way.
Ever heard of Chess? this one is about killing the father-figure in the opposing side, this is a generation war!
Ever heard of Drawers? This one is about little girls becoming big enough to become their own mothers, and destroys any potential sexual competitor for the grand prize, the reproducer...

Come one people, the list is endless. Games are made to ease our unconscious, and allow for things that are not permitted in our societies. So "making games responsibly" is either a problem of locking any unconscious-satisfactory sexual-and-violent content, thus assuming the position of the bad father that shouts at you for breathing to loudly, or using it in game creation and assuming knowingly that games ARE going to be played hopefully, and that it is up to the players to think what they will of your game. I've been playing Super Mario for ages and haven't even started on drugs or cigarette, I've played Chess for more than 15 years and still haven't killed my father. I've watched kids play CS for more than two years and still haven't killed any of them for being plain annoying with thir shouts...

Reflecting back, maybe I should have...

Robert Heinlein said it best: "Pablum for all, because the baby can't eat steak."

Marketing has been targeting sex and violence at youth as long as there has been mass media. Once it was lurid detective comics, now the bugbear is videogames.

Each generation, the old forget that they somehow survived adolescence, and become obsessively concerned with "saving" the young.

It's silly. It's inevitable.

Isn't it funny that the classics of literature today were considered the absolute moral nadir in years past. Romeo and Juliet is a perfect example. I wonder how long it will take for a Civization (a game ostensibly about genocide) to become a cultural classic?