board77

Dave_LF wrote:

Pippin4242 wrote:

Alright, but in your lifetime you're far more likely to have sex than you are to cut off a guy's head.

*~Pips~*

(does not apply to Linux users)

I had linux for a while...

COuldn't get the hang of it..
Liked those penguins though.

I chose multiple uses of the F word.
First of all, as a parent, you wouldn't let a child play games that are sexually explicit or graphically violent. That just boils down to choosing games that are age-appropriate. That is what the ratings are for on the games.
The f-word, however, doesn't do anything to improve any plot or storyline and is just plain annoying, no matter how old you are.

Just occurred to me...anyone who chose severed heads; are you offended by the (multiple) severed heads in LOTR? Do video games warrant different standards than movies since there is no director to limit what you do or see (or how long you do or see it)?

I'm not sure offended is the right word for how I feel about severed heads. How about grossed out?

I feel the same about severed heads in video games as I do the heads in LOTR: ICKY! Especially the bit where they catapult them over the walls. And that skull avalanche...

Dave_LF wrote:

Just occurred to me...anyone who chose severed heads; are you offended by the (multiple) severed heads in LOTR? Do video games warrant different standards than movies since there is no director to limit what you do or see (or how long you do or see it)?

The question started: As a parent. As a parent of a small boy, I find graphic violence unacceptable in video games and other entertainment. That includes LOTR, which is not appropriate, in my estimation, for young children. Profanity is an issue only because of the potential for parroting. Sex isn't that big a deal, although there are some manifestations of it I would prefer NOT to have to explain at this point in time...

I feel that "Offend" is really a poor choice of words in the poll. I don't feel that ANY of the options are inherently offensive in the way that, say, blatant racism or sexism being depicted in a positive light would be.

I think many people choose sex as "offensive" because, of all the options, it's the one that hits closest to reality for kids and the choices they face.

Most kids can distinguish fiction from reality by the time they're in their teens, so a severed head in a video game might not raise the same kind of real-life issues or questions as a depiction of sex. Seeing a severed head in a video game, most kids will know it's fiction and consider it to be little more than entertainment.

However, depictions of sex (even somewhat odd or semi-violent ones) are not so easily separated out from our everyday lives I believe. Kids know that overt violence is unacceptable and for purposes of entertainment, but sex is actually something that they know is within their reach or will be within their reach. They know they are seeing something that is possible, that is obtainable, that is a part of their decision-making process. But are we likely to see video game depictions of sex which allow kids to make good decisions about having sex? Not likely. Same for depictions of violence (this is at least as clear), but the difference is that violence is immediately recognized as unacceptable and fictitious from the start whereas sex is not (not that sex should be recognized as unacceptable, though perhaps it should be in most forms or in some ways for teenagers living under their parents... a disclaimer not likely to be found in most video games).

Yes, sex is natural. But that's not the question or the issue. The issue is what element of our media and of video games hits potentially closest to home and which has the greatest potential for communicating ill-advised courses of action to our children. Depictions of violence have this potential, but not for most teenagers who know the difference. Severed heads are, for most teenagers, just good plain fun and entertainment. But sex? It's fun to watch alright, but the average teenager takes away a much greater impression from a sex depiction than from a severed head, and I can't imagine it being too nuanced if it's from a video game.

Gay sex is the same thing. In fact gay sex might be better than straight sex since the reaction for most of society is slight discomfiture and hence the depiction serves the purpose of acclimatizing us to non-heteronormative depictions. Even for teens who are interested in same-sex activities, such a depiction would at least demonstrate that society is neutral with regard to different forms of sexuality and hence possibly be healthy for their sense of self-esteem.

I used to play quite a few video games. Violent, fast-paced first person shooters were my chosen fare. I started playing them when I was 12 or 13. Granted, the violence was mostly fantasy oriented (doom, quake, etc. as opposed to street violence and theft in Grand Theft Auto etc., though it still depicted humanoid/human fire-arm inflicted fatality), but I know that if those games would have been filled with different forms of sex rather than different forms of violence I would've been worse off. A video game is simply not the place to encounter something so close to reality.

The difference is that sex is something that is supposed to be a positive and enjoyable part of our lives, whereas violence is most often a purely negative thing that comes across as "black-and-white". And I think the difference is that video games, because of the way they are able to duplicate an alternate reality, do have the potential to severely affect a child's attitude toward what will one day become a part of their own life. Head-chopping is not likely to be in the list of their chosen careers or activities. Kids know this and so the issue is pure fantasy. But sex? A film depicts either a reality or a fantasy that is NOT the viewer's reality. But a video game blurs the line between the two. And when you take an issue that is already a part of everyday life (like sex) and put it in a video game, the line between what is already a part of life and what could very easily be a part of life becomes very unclear. Not so with decapitation... that's just plain gross. Gross is mostly just fun for teenagers, however.

Interesting post, jade. I think I agree with you though my initial reactiom was to vote violence. (And I support men making out in as many video games as possible. )

Quote:

A film depicts either a reality or a fantasy that is NOT the viewer's reality. But a video game blurs the line between the two. And when you take an issue that is already a part of everyday life (like sex) and put it in a video game, the line between what is already a part of life and what could very easily be a part of life becomes very unclear.

Hmm. It depends on how immersive the game is, though, does it not? When you talk blurring, you're talking about something with strong plot-and-character drivers, as opposed to something arcade-centric. It's not even a question of Tetris vs. The Sims: there's a significant difference between involvement level in a first person shooter or real time strategy game and something with more roleplaying, even though they can all share elements of identification.

I would like to think that as a pro-active and open parent, that whatever my children see or hear, whether it be TV, the playground, games or the internet, I could discuss openly and put into context with Real Life.

Only by that can children be properly grounded, since there is no way, especially these days, that parents can control all the inputs into a child's mind. Any other parental method is madness and so disparate from reality it needs a passport.

Quote:

there is no way, especially these days, that parents can control all the inputs into a child's mind.

Certainly. But there's a difference between controlling all of them and giving up on controlling any of them, especially for younger kids. I don't want my son to end up as if he was raised by literate, opera-loving wolves, but neither do I want him to end up as a slack-jawed mass consumer. There's a balancing act there.

When my kids were small, there was one computer game that I refused to let them play for a while, called "Dungeon Keeper". The premise of the game was that you were the "Dungeon Keeper" and your job was to keep Heroes from rescuing your prisoners! I did not want the kids putting themselves into that mindset so refused to let them play for a while.

And the time my kids were in 5th grade, 4th grade and 3rd grade. They kept bugging me about the game, and I requested that my husband only play it after the kids were asleep. That didn't fool them. They kept asking. Eventually, though, I told them that if they would take an algebra class program and pass the test, I'd let them play. I figured that would put the date comfortably in the future.

My fifth grader, zipped through the course, and qualified for the game in about a month. My fourth grader took about 4 months. The 3rd grader didn't have the basic math to move on to algebra yet, so I had to teach her multiplication and division first, and after about a year, she qualified for the game.

So much for my strategy.

However, the game didn't seem to hurt them- and they all surpassed me in mathematics a while ago. It's easy for them, since they learned it young. So, I didn't get what I wanted, but I "won" anyway.

Now, this is a perfect example. No criticism intended MH, but it'd be hard to find a less offensive game than Dungeon Keeper. In fact, I'd be inclined to recommend it simply because it makes kids challenge their preconceptions! Maybe the bad guys aren't the Dungeon keepers, but the Warriors who are coming in to steal their treasure. (There's no prisoners involved by the way). Its simply a comic reversal of the typical D&D style game, and done with a lot of humour to help swallow the strategy elements.

Maybe kids need a game to remind them that looking at a situation from the other side is always wise.

I wouldn't have a problem with my kid playing Dungeon Keeper, no.

None of the above listed things offend me per se, but of the options the one I would least want my child seeing at a young age would be the graphically severed head.

Sex and romance can be wonderful things in the right context. Beheading is pretty much always to be avoided.


As for Dungeon Keeper. Heck yeah. I want my child to have a good grasp of irony and black humor from the get go. The better they are at understanding it, the quicker they'll be able to level their inevitably acerbic wit at their schoolmates. Thus, Dungeon Keeper = Win.

No! Dungeon Keeper was bad! No 7 year old has any business playing a game where part of it is torturing prisoners. Or slapping imps or whatever it was. There were screams and badness! There was no way I wanted my kids put in the position where they were supposed to do those things as well as fight against the hero trying to rescue the prisoners!

Not until they were mentally more mature, anyway. Sure the game is funny to adults who are used to how the world usually works, but to kids it isn't funny, it's a game where they imagine themselves to be the person doing all those things with no solid framework yet about right and wrong.

I'm not terribly conservative, but that's where I drew the line. I did show my kids Rocky Horror Picture Show when they were too young for it- and they just didn't get it. They were bored. It wasn't until they re-watched it at about 14-15 that they enjoyed it. Some things take an (semi) adult perspective to appreciate.

Indoctrinating kids that it's OK and even fun to be the bad guy at a young age is Wrong.

Sorry, can't agree Maria. I recommend you try playing the game.

Apart from anything else there ARE no prisoners. The "Heroes" are not trying to rescue them, but kill them to steal treasure.

You're missing the whole point of the game!

I don't play computer games any more. I saw it played and heard the screams enough, though, to be sure that my gut reaction was the correct one.

Perhaps we'd better just agree to disagree on this one as I'm pretty inflexible on this particular issue. Children should not be trained to be the bad guy. They should want to be the Hero. It's as simple as that for me.

I've heard of this...

The guy protecting the treasure isn't really a "bad guy", any more than the person trying to get it is a "good guy". Person A has treasure, person B wants to get it by unfair means, i.e. killing the owner and stuffing his pockets.

I don't see what's wrong with person A trying to defend what is rightfully his...

Just out of curiosity, would you have a problem with a game where the "good guy" is trying to protect his castle from the "bad guy"?

Wolfgangbos wrote:

I want my child to have a good grasp of irony and black humor...

As an American, good luck with that! Most Americans think irony is one of those small clothes-straightening devices found in hotel rooms.