Children & Violent Videogames

Do you ever just read something and hold your head in your hands in despair? I did when I just read some online debates among tens of parents on whether they let their children play games rated for adults. Seemingly intelligent and well educated people can be seen trying to justify allowing their children to view the most violent of content. These people know how violent the content is, they can't even plead ignorance of that. Yet out of some misplaced pride in their child's ability to function as an adult or perhaps a typically modern and lazy aproach to let their little darling have whatever he wants they would attempt to justify their reckless stupidity.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Many years ago - before I began a career writing about videogames - worked in a videogames store. We would often have parents walking up to the counter with a violent game intended for their child nexrt to them. In such cases we would point out the nature of the content. In many cases - thankfully - the parent would be shocked and it would be clear the child had lied about what was in that game case. In all too many cases though - especially among the educationally bereft - the parent would reply that they didn't give a toss (or something stronger). And in those cases we wouldn't sell them the game either.
...
Some experiences are for adults, some for children. We have rules on movies, alcohol and tobacco that most intelligent adults seem to understand and respect. But why don't they do so with videogames? Perhaps it's still the widespread mistaken belief that videogames are meant merely for children. And that whatever their content, there is an expected child audience. So Call of Duty is for over tens, Mario for children younger than that.
I am dismayed when I walk into my local Game and see the number of what we might call "yummy mummies" buying violent games for their children. Amazing really. You might expect it of the thick and feckless, but not those who outwardly at least seem to show some respect for societ and having had an education. And amazing the shops will let this happen. As I said, back in the 90s we'd just refuse the sale if we thought the item was for a child, just as a shop would with alcohol or tobacco.
It all comes down to being lazy parents. You see folks trying to justify their stupid decisions - oh yes we had a long family talk about the second world war and little Oscar (half of middle class kids are called Oscar) knows the difference between right and wrong. But the truth is they are just giving into peer pressure and their own wish for an easy life. Those of you who are happy to let their children play games that have a VERY CLEAR age rating well above their child's age - do you do the same with movies?
Do you ever say "no" to your little darlings? "Awww mum, Sebastian's mum lets him take a bottle of vodka to school, why can't I?" Since when is peer pressure on your child by other children pressure on you? Show some backbone. Say no to your child, tell them their friends' parents are wrong if you think they are. Don't be such a coward. You are the parent. You might think giving in gives you an easy life, but that's short term, and you'll end up with much harder parental work later.
Any of you that have bought Call of Duty for your 12 year olds, will you be letting them watch The Human Centipede too, or perhaps The Exorcist. Will your 12 year old be able to down a few beers while he enjoys his violent game? Perhaps you'll allow him to smoke a few cigarettes to help cope with the pressures of the modern warfare he is embroiled in. Perhaps he could wind down with some porn.
No?
Didn't think so. You're all lazy, delusional idiots.
You may get the idea that I'm anti-games. I'm certainly not. I've worked as a professional games writer/editor for over ten years. I love a good shoot 'em up (BTW Call of Duty isn't a good one) and have plenty of violent games in my collection. But I'm over 18 and I deemed capable of understanding the issues surrouonding such content.
Your child isn't capable of making those decisions. Unfortunately many parents don't seem to be able or willing to make those decisions either. That's why we have legally binding age ratings on games. The 18 rating says that a store cannot sell the item to a child - nor should it sell it to someone buying it for a child. Do you know why? Because we have laws. We have laws because some people are too stupid and selfish to make the right decision, so we have to have a judicial system to do it for them.
Yet it seems no matter how obvious, how big and bright we make these age ratings, some people will completely ignore them due to some delusional misplaced pride in your child's ability to absorb and intellectually process the horrific violence in front of them. Oh we don't let your darling son play violent videogames in his room - he plays them in the lounge. Well thank heavens for that, that altitude, longitude and latitude shift of ten feet really will make a huge difference to the way his immature and easily influenced brain copes with the violent images it is being forced to process. Well done many of you. Parents of the year.
I'll say it again. You are lazy, delusional idiots.
Oh and before I go a quick plea to those of you who do let their kids play 18 rated games. At least keep the kids offline. Stupid whiny kids are ruining online gaming for those adults who would like to enjoy it with our peers. I really don't expect to go down to the pub at 10pm and have twelve year olds running around calling everyone a "dirty jew" or a "fag" in their stupid breaking voices. But you're quite happy to let your kids to that in online games intended for adults. Thanks a bunch for sharing your bigoted idiotic offspring with us.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Harry on 15/11/11 at 11:53 . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. |

29/12/11 @ 22:23
We actually don't have real rules for movies -- not in the same way as alcohol and tobacco. Movie ratings have no legal merit or weight, it's all self enforcement. Just sayin'.
Now, while lazy parenting is certainly a problem, I don't think you paint this issue fairly at all. Granted, you are the Grumpy Daddy, so I'm ready to accept some hyperbole, but I think you're putting far too much stock into what other people determine.
The MPAA rating system and the ESRB are not made up of brilliant child psychologists trying to carefully determine, with strong moral conviction, what is appropriate for what age group. It's a bunch of people with a guideline and some opinions trying to avoid government regulation. While them supplying a content guideline is useful, who is to say they know more about how to raise their children than me or my parents? Is it okay for a 14 year old to watch the Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, where a beating heart is ripped out of a human being, but not okay for him to hear the word "Fuck" and see some breasts? Now, maybe they shouldn't be watching the Temple of Doom either, but ultimately these ratings do not come from infallible moral authorities.
Same goes with alcohol, which also is not as clear cut as you make it sound. Many European (Italy and France I think, possibly among others) cultures commonly give some amount of wine to kids at a young age and it is legal to do this in a number of US states. Now giving your 12 year old a 6 pack of natty-ice and a copy of Mortal Kombat 9 to play over XBLA would clearly be a pretty outrageous thing to do, there is still a lot of moral wiggle room.
I know personally I grew up with a lot of media outside of my age range. Terminator 2 was one of my favorite movies in my early teens and I was playing Mortal Kombat 2 and 3 over the SNES modem service, XBand. I'd go to a friend's house who would have various nudie games on his computer like Leisure Suit Larry. His mom was from England and they apparently don't care as much about breasts as we do (apparently at the time, nude ads were frequently in British newspapers). My parents were invested in me, though. I grew up, going through Special Education with an undefined (and possibly non-existing) learning disability which required constant interaction from my mother to make sure I was developing in a healthy manner. None of my issues were ever behavioral or violence related. I was also a late reader, but video games helped, rather than hindered. They were an important part of my development and are also now game design is my trade.
... If I have a child, why should I think he is less capable of separating reality and fantasy than I was? Why should I think the MPAA or ESRB know perfectly well whats fit for my theoretical child or any child? So while I partially agree that there is a ton of lazy parents, I think you're putting too much stock in the guidance of some non-government organizations (not that a government organization would necessarily be much better).
Also, is it worse to expose a child to violent images or deprive them of modern forms of social interaction? It's hard to say and I could see it going either way. I know violent images didn't turn me into a fuck-up (I was in special ed way before Mortal Kombat was around), but I know what stunted social development can do to a person and I did not like it one bit.
In short, all I'm saying is that this isn't nearly as simple as you're making it out to be.
22/01/12 @ 23:35
/sigh