Sony's conference causes controversy due to violent content

[Tom4784]

Sony had a games conference on Tuesday in which they showed off a slate of upcoming games but two trailers in particular have caused a bit of a stir which are the two below.

UzdNECcio54

YtPmIBqRwQU

Most of the controversy is centred around the second trailer and depiction of domestic violence with people saying that this kind of story doesn't have a place in gaming or that there should have been warnings ahead of the trailer being shown (There were no warnings that the show would contain content unsuitable for certain audiences).

Do you think the controversy is warranted? Are games too violent? Should games attempt to tackle difficult themes? Should there have been more warnings when it comes to conferences like this that are streamed to thousands of people?

[Marsh.]

Not a gamer, but I find the controversy silly.

Would these people make the same complaint about a film festival showing a movie/trailer depicting domestic violence or something similar?

It's not real. It's art. And art, like life, has ugly sides.

[Tom4784]

Firstly, I don't think game violence is an issue, if people don't have a problem with zombies ripping people apart in Walking Dead then I don't see why it would be an issue in a game, especially with the line between gaming and traditional media becoming more blurred by the day. The Last of Us trailer was harrowing but I don't think the violence was anymore noteworthy than anything you would see at the cinema.

When it comes to difficult themes, I'm very much on board with video games tackling them when it's done right. With narrative becoming more important in gaming, I think it's a good place to tackle themes that traditional media are hesistant to touch. There was a game released this year called Hellblade which was about a Celtic Warrior who suffered from Psychosis and the player was encouraged at the start of the game to wear earphones so that they can more accurately get a feel for the symptoms the main character was feeling and it was very effective. I think that game did something for mental awareness that a TV show or film could never do, it gave us a glimpse of what Psychosis was like for it's sufferers. I think the problem with this trailer of Detroit is that it is mostly out of context and out of context it becomes a bit crass. I don't think games should shy away from difficult themes though as they can highlight them in ways that other forms of media can't.

I do think the backlash against Sony for not airing warnings was warranted though especially when it comes to subjects such as Domestic abuse.

[Shaun]

I am generally wary of most forms of entertainment that show a lot of violence and gore so perhaps I'm a little bit biased but - I was looking forward to the TLOU2 trailer and the scene with the hammer did make me uncomfortable.

But I guess that's rather the point. Same goes for torture scenes in movies/TV, other violence action... if it's told in an artful way. Do think some games are gratuitous with it though.

[Toy Soldier]

If it's OK for other media there's no reason it shouldn't be for games, is my basic stance.

That said... With the latter one, even both perhaps, I'm not sure it necessarily had to be in a trailer for them. The first TLOU2 teaser trailer had no (active) violence and was a much more effective trailer than this one, so it's not really necessary.

[thesheriff443]

Have there not been links to people that play violent games being violent?
Don't all you gamers reach for your baseball bats.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Not a gamer, but I find the controversy silly.

Would these people make the same complaint about a film festival showing a movie/trailer depicting domestic violence or something similar?

It's not real. It's art. And art, like life, has ugly sides.

The difference is more kids play 18 games than go to 18 movies and, and its a big AND, you play a game

you watch a movie

[Marsh.]

The difference is more kids play 18 games than go to 18 movies and, and its a big AND, you play a game

you watch a movie
The difference being?

They're both forms of entertainment.

Unless you're telling me that within this game the player themselves as the character has a level where they beat up the Mrs for burning the dinner.

A ridiculous complaint.

[Tom4784]

The difference is more kids play 18 games than go to 18 movies and, and its a big AND, you play a game

you watch a movie

There's no links between violence in real life and violence in games, there's been enough studies over the years trying to find a link and none have ever found definitive proof.

If someone has the capacity for violence then it's existed within them long before they watched a film or played a game. You can't play Call of Duty and suddenly decide out of nowhere to go on a shooting spree.

There's not much, if any, evidence that there's any difference between playing or watching violence as far as I know.

[Rob!]

I don't know about controversial but that game looks amazing.

[Scarlett.]

The difference is more kids play 18 games than go to 18 movies and, and its a big AND, you play a game

you watch a movie

Maybe, just maybe, parents should pay attention to the age rating before buy little Timmy a copy of Grand Theft Auto V, you know, just maybe.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Maybe, just maybe, parents should pay attention to the age rating before buy little Timmy a copy of Grand Theft Auto V, you know, just maybe.

yeah, have a kid and see how you go there barney...

:idc:

[Scarlett.]

yeah, have a kid and see how you go there barney...

:idc:

I'm not saying a kid cant play any game above their age rating, but there are ones that are inappropriate, especially GTA V which has a torture scene that even I thought went a little too far

[Crimson Dynamo]

I'm not saying a kid cant play any game above their age rating, but there are ones that are inappropriate, especially GTA V which has a torture scene that even I thought went a little too far

every kid has a big brother or a pal that does

ratings are meaningless

[Scarlett.]

every kid has a big brother or a pal that does

ratings are meaningless

They're there for a reason, if parents ignore them, thats on them.

[Tom4784]

every kid has a big brother or a pal that does

ratings are meaningless

Silly Chewy, expecting parents to do some actual parenting.

[Brother Leon]

What a load of tosh. Forms of entertainment are going to be violent or gory. It's not like either trailer was just senseless violence for the sake of it either.

[Amy Jade]

They're there for a reason, if parents ignore them, thats on them.

I agree with this. I admit my mum let me watch horror movies before I was 18 and I played horror games with my step brother from pretty early too, there have always been violent games around - it is so so easy these days to look up a game and decide if a child should play it, you can pretty much type any recent game into youtube and watch soneone play it.

If a parent is too lazy to check then it's their fault, not the developers or studio who make it.

A good example is the recent Friday the 13th game, I play it quite a lot and encounter kids of about 10 playing it, nobody can tell me that their parents have never heard of those movies and know it's about a serial killer stalking teenagers in the woods and killing them off in increasing gory ways and even if they aren't aware of it the date in question is synonymous with horror.

[Toy Soldier]

I'm not a huge believer in "age ratings" for the mostpart; parents should know their own kids and know what is too much for them. It's far more complicated than age ratings. But even where age ratings are concerned... I would say they're more relevant for the general wellbeing of the child watching, not because of any risk of "emulating behaviour". In other words, I wouldn't let my daughter watch most adult rated stuff simply because she'd probably end up scared, or simply not understand what's going on.

Basically... Kids from loving, well adjusted homes don't turn violent because of games, or movies, or any other scapegoat... Violent kids pretty much always simply have violent lives. They either get it directly from a caregiver's behaviour, or if not, they have a life that is otherwise frustrating / in turmoil a lot and they get wound up and lash out because of that.

One of the huge differences still between games and movies though, is that gaming is still a (relatively) new form of entertainment for many adults... They don't do it themselves, they don't really understand it, so they just let kids get on with it without really having any grasp of what modern games are like. They picture Crash Bandicoot, not The Last Of Us.

That's changing over time though, as I'd say the vast majority of under-30's do at least a bit of gaming to some extent now... It becomes a more mainstream form of entertainment year on year.

[RileyH]

I don't know about controversial but that game looks amazing.

2

[thesheriff443]

Silly Chewy, expecting parents to do some actual parenting.

Did you wait until you were 18 to play an 18 rated game?

Us parents are doing a great job but kids will be kids.

What we have to be on the look out for is men playing games pretending to be kids asking for naked photos.

[Cherie]

Just sit on your bean bag dezzy in your room playing online against a twelve year old and getting beat.

Did you wait until you were 18 to play an 18 rated game?

Us parents are doing a great job but kids will be kids.

What we have to be on the look out for is men playing games pretending to be kids asking for naked photos.


:clap2:

its no different to kids accessing nudey magazines back in the day, did their parents sanction them accessing them or encourage it...no, you can do your best to prevent your child from accessing content inappropriate for their age but if they really want to they will find a way, whether it be at school or their friends house, made even easier now they all have smart phones etc, and LT's point of older siblings is a very valid point also. As usual it's mostly non parents up in arms at the perceived lack of parenting in these situations, come back in 5 or 10 years time and let us know how your little angel is doing and how you monitored it, particularly when they weren't in your care

[Tom4784]

Did you wait until you were 18 to play an 18 rated game?

Us parents are doing a great job but kids will be kids.

What we have to be on the look out for is men playing games pretending to be kids asking for naked photos.

It's up to parents to decide whether their kids are mature enough to handle mature content. It's easy enough to monitor what kids are doing and playing so if their parents have a problem with violent video games, it's up to them to moderate what they play.

You can't be all like 'Violent video games are bad for children but I can't be bothered to keep an eye on what they're playing!'

It's a parent's responsibility to know what their children are doing.



What we have to be on the look out for is men playing games pretending to be kids asking for naked photos.[/QUOTE[/B]]


:clap2:

its no different to kids accessing nudey magazines back in the day, did their parents sanction them accessing them or encourage it...no, you can do your best to prevent your child from accessing content inappropriate for their age but if they really want to they will find a way, whether it be at school or their friends house, made even easier now they all have smart phones etc, and LT's point of older siblings is a very valid point also. As usual it's mostly non parents up in arms at the perceived lack of parenting in these situations, come back in 5 or 10 years time and let us know how your little angel is doing and how you monitored it, particularly when they weren't in your care

It's incredibly easy to monitor and limit what your kids are doing online. There's settings on consoles that can prevent them from talking to strangers online or receiving messages and i'm sure there's passcode options so that kids can't simply switch off safety measures unless they know the code. Hell I'm fairly certain you can limit games with older age certificates so that child accounts can't access them.

There are plenty of options out there for parents that don't want their kids playing violent games or interacting with people online.

The advent of Smartphones haven't made monitoring children harder, it's easier than it used to be since there's **** tons of apps for monitoring children with technology that didn't exist before smartphones were a thing.

Finally, the act of pushing out a baby does not make a person superior to people who don't have kids nor does it give you a wealth of information that would otherwise be inaccessible to people without kids.

If parents are that concerned about what their kids are doing then there's plenty of options available to them as long as they can...you know... be bothered to do more than just complain.

[Cherie]

It's up to parents to decide whether their kids are mature enough to handle mature content. It's easy enough to monitor what kids are doing and playing so if their parents have a problem with violent video games, it's up to them to moderate what they play.

You can't be all like 'Violent video games are bad for children but I can't be bothered to keep an eye on what they're playing!'

It's a parent's responsibility to know what their children are doing.



It's incredibly easy to monitor and limit what your kids are doing online. There's settings on consoles that can prevent them from talking to strangers online or receiving messages and i'm sure there's passcode options so that kids can't simply switch off safety measures unless they know the code. Hell I'm fairly certain you can limit games with older age certificates so that child accounts can't access them.

There are plenty of options out there for parents that don't want their kids playing violent games or interacting with people online.

The advent of Smartphones haven't made monitoring children harder, it's easier than it used to be since there's **** tons of apps for monitoring children with technology that didn't exist before smartphones were a thing.

Finally, the act of pushing out a baby does not make a person superior to people who don't have kids nor does it give you a wealth of information that would otherwise be inaccessible to people without kids.

If parents are that concerned about what their kids are doing then there's plenty of options available to them as long as they can...you know... be bothered to do more than just complain.

Jeez we all know about parental settings Dezzy :laugh: read what I actually posted why don't you

[Tom4784]

Jeez we all know about parental settings Dezzy :laugh: read what I actually posted why don't you

I did read and respond to your points, but you haven't really responded to what I said, instead you decided to respond with an baiting comment.

[Scarlett.]

Did you wait until you were 18 to play an 18 rated game?

Us parents are doing a great job but kids will be kids.



I did play GTA III when I was 10, but there is a huge difference between
http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/grand-theft-auto-3.jpeg

and this
http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/1/5/6/3/8/torture2.jpg.jpg/EG11/resize/600x-1/quality/80/format/jpg

Whenever I played GTA III, my mum watched, and if she found anything too violent, I'd be made aware that it was wrong, and its a fictional game, and that things in the game shouldn't be replicated in real life. Also, my mum refused to get me Max Payne, as it was too violent, so it is possible to say no to certain games.

What we have to be on the look out for is men playing games pretending to be kids asking for naked photos.
wat?

[Cherie]

I did read and respond to your points, but you haven't really responded to what I said, instead you decided to respond with an baiting comment.

My response is perfectly valid, you refuse to take on board that kids spend time away from their parents, and ergo away from boundaries set by their parents, you also incorrectly assume that every parent has the same boundaries, and that kids do not come into contact with older teenagers, young adults, in your world of perfection there would be no abductions or accidents as parents would have eyes on their kids 24/7, then you claim you know exactly what it is like to be a parent, that's like me saying I know how to perform brain surgery

[Toy Soldier]

I genuinely hate to sound patronising and do the "u don't know what it's like" thing but here is the truth;

People with no kids have very little idea what is involved in being a parent to any kid. And not only that. People WITH kids have very little idea what it's like to be a parent to any kid other than their own kids. People usually find out that second one when they get to child #2 thinking they had it all sussed with the first one, and then get the horrible reality check that it's a completely different beast :joker:.

Children, the inconvenient little ****s, are individual human beings. You get to know them and muddle by the best you can, hoping to get them to adulthood with as few issues as possible. Let them experience what's out there (within reason) and be available to put it all in context when they need it.

You can't, and shouldn't, monitor what your children are doing 24/7. Not only is it unrealistic, but that level of control is psychologically a really bad thing for anyone including (maybe even more so) a child.

But yeah, basically, any advice from anyone (whether they have their own kids or not) assuming "all parents should do x/y/z then it would be fine" is being naive and falling into the two major traps of such assumptions.

1) That all children are the same

And

2) That when people have kids they stop having their own **** going on and become a "parentbot" that can or should spend every waking hour eyeballing their children.

[Tom4784]

My response is perfectly valid, you refuse to take on board that kids spend time away from their parents, and ergo away from boundaries set by their parents, you also incorrectly assume that every parent has the same boundaries, and that kids do not come into contact with older teenagers, young adults, in your world of perfection there would be no abductions or accidents as parents would have eyes on their kids 24/7, then you claim you know exactly what it is like to be a parent, that's like me saying I know how to perform brain surgery

You made a whole lot of assumptions there and none of them are correct. Try to actually read what I've said and not shove your poorly comprehended assumptions down my throat

If you are going to complain about violent video games, you can't expect the world to change for just for you. If you don't want kids to access violent video games then you have to be pro-active otherwise you have no grounds to complain if your kid plays or watches something you didn't want them to. You want to have your cake and eat it and guess what? You can't.

If you're that concerned about violent video games but not so concerned about who your child might be hanging out with then your priorities seem a bit borked. Your argument works against you, in that regard.

When have I ever mentioned anything about abductions or accidents? I've only ever said that parents shouldn't complain about violent video games if they can't be bothered to even look into something as elementary as parental controls. You have a habit of diving headfirst into the deep end with illogical and bizarre points that don't really relate to the topic when you are on the ropes.

[Cherie]

You made a whole lot of assumptions there and none of them are correct. Try to actually read what I've said and not shove your poorly comprehended assumptions down my throat

If you are going to complain about violent video games, you can't expect the world to change for just for you. If you don't want kids to access violent video games then you have to be pro-active otherwise you have no grounds to complain if your kid plays or watches something you didn't want them to. You want to have your cake and eat it and guess what? You can't.

If you're that concerned about violent video games but not so concerned about who your child might be hanging out with then your priorities seem a bit borked. Your argument works against you, in that regard.

When have I ever mentioned anything about abductions or accidents? I've only ever said that parents shouldn't complain about violent video games if they can't be bothered to even look into something as elementary as parental controls. You have a habit of diving headfirst into the deep end with illogical and bizarre points that don't really relate to the topic when you are on the ropes.



Quote:
Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet
every kid has a big brother or a pal that does

ratings are meaningless
Silly Chewy, expecting parents to do some actual parenting.



this is the comment of yours I was referring to as you well know, and your airy fairy Waltons view on parenting, a few months back you suggested I couldn't have an opinion on working in retail as you thought I hadn't worked in a shop, now tune changed you are an expert in parenting without being one.

See TS post above which you failed to comment on though he essentially just said what I did, but maybe he put in a way you found more palatable?



as for who children are hanging out with, are you suggesting Chewy is some delinquent because he played 18 rated video games at 10? His mother felt he was quite capable and bought him the game, maybe he had a friend who wasn't quite so mature but came round his house, that's how kids get access to stuff their parents aren't that keen on, though I guess yours will live in a bubble.

[Tom4784]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet
every kid has a big brother or a pal that does

ratings are meaningless
Silly Chewy, expecting parents to do some actual parenting.



this is the comment of yours I was referring to as you well know, and your airy fairy Waltons view on parenting, a few months back you suggested I couldn't have an opinion on working in retail as you thought I hadn't worked in a shop, now tune changed you are an expert in parenting without being one.

See TS post above which you failed to comment on though he essentially just said what I did, but maybe he put in a way you found more palatable?



as for who children are hanging out with, are you suggesting Chewy is some delinquent because he played 18 rated video games at 10? His mother felt he was quite capable and bought him the game, maybe he had a friend who wasn't quite so mature but came round his house, that's how kids get access to stuff their parents aren't that keen on, though I guess yours will live in a bubble.


I stand by my comment, Parental controls are easy and if your children are hanging out at someone else's house and you have a preference of the type of games or things they might play or watch then it's down to you to inform the other child's parents. It's common sense. If you are the kind of parent that doesn't want your child playing or watching things that are meant for a mature audience then you simply can't blame those things for existing, If you don't want your kids to see something then it's down to you to make sure they don't. I'm not sure why you are having so much difficulty with that.

I think it's dumb to shield kids like that, it's better to make sure they can differentiate between the game and reality and understand that violence in real life is not okay. I was always allowed to play and watch what I liked and I (like so many people) never had any problems because I knew it was just a game or a film or whatever.

I remember that thread and I love how you're throwing my comments out of context. I was basically being victim blamed in that thread because I said the customers are not always right and that people who work in retail have to deal with abuse from customers regularly and people were saying that, if I got abused then it was probably my fault as someone who works in retail. I said that you couldn't understand what it's like to work in retail and dealing with abusive customers if you've only ever been a customer. That's a fair comment, I wouldn't presume to tell a builder what it's like to build a house or tell a surgeon how to operate.

Parenting however is not a job and anyone can experience it and you don't have to have your own kids to understand what it's like to be responsible for a child or make suggestions.

Your last point is ridiculous and complete nonsense and it confirms something for me. You don't really know what you are arguing for or against in this thread since your main priority seems to be scoring points against me because you have just completely switched your stance on a dime in order to make one of the biggest reaches I've ever seen to suggest that I'm insulting Chewy when that's blatant to everyone that i'm not. Go back and read my posts PROPERLY and you'll see that I'm in agreement with Chewy. The 'bubble' comment is proof that you haven't really read or understood anything I've said since you think I'm endorsing strict observation over children when I'm not. Like I've said a few times, you can't blame something for existing if you don't want your children to see it but aren't willing to use the tools at your command to stop them. It's an easy enough point, or it would be if you actually read posts properly.

Step away from your device, take a breather. Go form an actual opinion on the matter that isn't 'I hate Dezzy so I'll oppose him on everything whether it makes sense or not'. it's apparent that your input in this thread is purely reactionary to me rather than you having any interest or an opinion about the subject matter since you actually haven't shared an opinion on it at all. Your first post was in support of jibes made be Sheriff towards me and every post sicne has been in response to me.

Do you actually have an opinion on the subject matter?

[Cherie]

I stand by my comment, Parental controls are easy and if your children are hanging out at someone else's house and you have a preference of the type of games or things they might play or watch then it's down to you to inform the other child's parents. It's common sense. If you are the kind of parent that doesn't want your child playing or watching things that are meant for a mature audience then you simply can't blame those things for existing, If you don't want your kids to see something then it's down to you to make sure they don't. I'm not sure why you are having so much difficulty with that.

I think it's dumb to shield kids like that, it's better to make sure they can differentiate between the game and reality and understand that violence in real life is not okay. I was always allowed to play and watch what I liked and I (like so many people) never had any problems because I knew it was just a game or a film or whatever.

I remember that thread and I love how you're throwing my comments out of context. I was basically being victim blamed in that thread because I said the customers are not always right and that people who work in retail have to deal with abuse from customers regularly and people were saying that, if I got abused then it was probably my fault as someone who works in retail. I said that you couldn't understand what it's like to work in retail and dealing with abusive customers if you've only ever been a customer. That's a fair comment, I wouldn't presume to tell a builder what it's like to build a house or tell a surgeon how to operate.

Parenting however is not a job and anyone can experience it and you don't have to have your own kids to understand what it's like to be responsible for a child or make suggestions.

Your last point is ridiculous and complete nonsense and it confirms something for me. You don't really know what you are arguing for or against in this thread since your main priority seems to be scoring points against me because you have just completely switched your stance on a dime in order to make one of the biggest reaches I've ever seen to suggest that I'm insulting Chewy when that's blatant to everyone that i'm not. Go back and read my posts PROPERLY and you'll see that I'm in agreement with Chewy. The 'bubble' comment is proof that you haven't really read or understood anything I've said since you think I'm endorsing strict observation over children when I'm not. Like I've said a few times, you can't blame something for existing if you don't want your children to see it but aren't willing to use the tools at your command to stop them. It's an easy enough point, or it would be if you actually read posts properly.

Step away from your device, take a breather. Go form an actual opinion on the matter that isn't 'I hate Dezzy so I'll oppose him on everything whether it makes sense or not'. it's apparent that your input in this thread is purely reactionary to me rather than you having any interest or an opinion about the subject matter since you actually haven't shared an opinion on it at all. Your first post was in support of jibes made be Sheriff towards me and every post sicne has been in response to me.

Do you actually have an opinion on the subject matter?


Yep when all else fails resort to insults and telling me to go away..standard from you. I haven't insulted you in this thread I have responded to your comments as has TS but you haven't taken issue with him, yet I have the problem with you? In the main I ignore you tbf

[Tom4784]

Also Cherie, be very careful about talking down to people who do not have children, you do not know my circumstances or anyone else's and it's very insensitive considering some reasons why people might not have kids.

[Tom4784]

Yep when all else fails resort to insults and telling me to go away..standard from you. I haven't insulted you in this thread I have responded to your comments as has TS but you haven't taken issue with him, yet I have the problem with you? In the main I ignore you tbf

So you've ignored the vast majority of my post then. Okay, you have no interest in a discussion and I won't rise to your trolling.

[Cherie]

Also Cherie, be very careful about talking down to people who do not have children, you do not know my circumstances or anyone else's and it's very insensitive considering some reasons why people might not have kids.

Oh please, you slate parents yet you want to be treated with kid gloves, treat everyone how you want to be treated and all will be well

[Cherie]

So you've ignored the vast majority of my post then. Okay, you have no interest in a discussion and I won't rise to your trolling.

I have made my point over and over, it's pointless repeating it as you won't take it on board

[Tom4784]

Oh please, you slate parents yet you want to be treated with kid gloves, treat everyone how you want to be treated and all will be well

You have misconstrued my point again.

I've not slated parents, if you actually bothered to read my posts you'd understand that my comments are aimed towards people that complain that violent games exist and want them banned or dealt with but don't use the tools at hand to prevent their own kids from engaging in content that they disapprove of.

In that large post you quoted but largely ignored (and didn't read judging by how quickly you responded) I talked about it and my own views on violent games and children but you didn't bother to read the post so you don't know.

I won't respond to any more pettiness, stop trying to derail the topic and speak about the subject matter.

[Toy Soldier]

I stand by my comment, Parental controls are easy and if your children are hanging out at someone else's house and you have a preference of the type of games or things they might play or watch then it's down to you to inform the other child's parents. It's common sense. If you are the kind of parent that doesn't want your child playing or watching things that are meant for a mature audience then you simply can't blame those things for existing, If you don't want your kids to see something then it's down to you to make sure they don't.

See... I agree and disagree really. I disagree in that, it doesn't work like that. Parental controls are BS for the mostpart - kids are tech savvy by 8 these days - it's like filling a room with toys and putting a knee high barrier that says "DON'T GO IN HERE!" in front of it. Secondly, when kids are out of the house you can't control what they're going to see no matter how many conversations you have with other kids parents, etc... it's just not how it works... my opinion is sort of more along the lines of "if you don't want your kids to see this stuff and still live a full social existence, tough ****, they're gonna see it."

You either accept that kids are going to see stuff not intended for kids... or you lock them in a room wrapped in cotton wool. It's that simple, there's no inbetween :shrug:. However that's where...

I think it's dumb to shield kids like that, it's better to make sure they can differentiate between the game and reality and understand that violence in real life is not okay. I was always allowed to play and watch what I liked and I (like so many people) never had any problems because I knew it was just a game or a film or whatever.

This part comes in, which I totally agree with. You can't go around dictating what's "allowed to exist" because of what your kids might see. You have to accept that they will, and gear yourself towards helping them to understand and put these things in context. In my opinion, it's the kids who are sheltered from these things only to naturally encounter them as teenagers / young adults who struggle MORE to separate entertainment from reality.

So yeah. I disagree that it's even possible for, let alone the responsibility of, a parent to fully shelter a child from these things no matter how much they might want to. It can't be done. But at the same time, I don't think that means the world needs to shift or "censor itself" to fit around kids. They're going to see it. Parent's job is simply to guide them through understanding and contextualizing what they're seeing :shrug:.


I mean let's face it, kids are ****ing bizarre anyway. My daughter has no problem with horror films, GTA, Resident Evil etc... she dressed up as a corpse bride for Halloween that was genuinely scary (she won the costume competition :hee: ) ... but she is absolutely TERRIFIED of the Minecraft skeletons. Terrified. Like screeching, tears, full on panicked terror.


https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/world-fighters/images/4/4d/Skelly.png/revision/latest?cb=20160808215948

:think:

[Brillopad]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet
every kid has a big brother or a pal that does

ratings are meaningless
Silly Chewy, expecting parents to do some actual parenting.



this is the comment of yours I was referring to as you well know, and your airy fairy Waltons view on parenting, a few months back you suggested I couldn't have an opinion on working in retail as you thought I hadn't worked in a shop, now tune changed you are an expert in parenting without being one.

See TS post above which you failed to comment on though he essentially just said what I did, but maybe he put in a way you found more palatable?



as for who children are hanging out with, are you suggesting Chewy is some delinquent because he played 18 rated video games at 10? His mother felt he was quite capable and bought him the game, maybe he had a friend who wasn't quite so mature but came round his house, that's how kids get access to stuff their parents aren't that keen on, though I guess yours will live in a bubble.

I agree. Someone can’t accuse others of not understanding something because they haven’t done it, then do the self-same thing when it suits. Looking after a child for a brief period can hardly be compared to full-time parenting. Usual double standards from some.

Being a parent is more important than a retail job as parents are responsible for helping to create a well-balanced and grounded person into society. It’s pretty much a lifetime responsibility. You can never really retire. You always can get another job.

[Brillopad]

She also doesn't need you to speak for her I would have thought.

Neither should Dezzy need you to speak for him.

[Tom4784]

Fascinating discussion we got here about violence in video games and whether certain themes should be explored or not.

[Tom4784]

I agree. Someone can’t accuse others of not understanding something because they haven’t done it, then do the self-same thing when it suits. Looking after a child for a brief period can hardly be compared to full-time parenting. Usual double standards from some.

Being a parent is more important than a retail job as parents are responsible for helping to create a well-balanced and grounded person into society. It’s pretty much a lifetime responsibility. You can never really retire. You always can get another job.

Nothing to add to the discussion, then?

[Tom4784]

See... I agree and disagree really. I disagree in that, it doesn't work like that. Parental controls are BS for the mostpart - kids are tech savvy by 8 these days - it's like filling a room with toys and putting a knee high barrier that says "DON'T GO IN HERE!" in front of it. Secondly, when kids are out of the house you can't control what they're going to see no matter how many conversations you have with other kids parents, etc... it's just not how it works... my opinion is sort of more along the lines of "if you don't want your kids to see this stuff and still live a full social existence, tough ****, they're gonna see it."

You either accept that kids are going to see stuff not intended for kids... or you lock them in a room wrapped in cotton wool. It's that simple, there's no inbetween :shrug:. However that's where...



This part comes in, which I totally agree with. You can't go around dictating what's "allowed to exist" because of what your kids might see. You have to accept that they will, and gear yourself towards helping them to understand and put these things in context. In my opinion, it's the kids who are sheltered from these things only to naturally encounter them as teenagers / young adults who struggle MORE to separate entertainment from reality.

So yeah. I disagree that it's even possible for, let alone the responsibility of, a parent to fully shelter a child from these things no matter how much they might want to. It can't be done. But at the same time, I don't think that means the world needs to shift or "censor itself" to fit around kids. They're going to see it. Parent's job is simply to guide them through understanding and contextualizing what they're seeing :shrug:.


I mean let's face it, kids are ****ing bizarre anyway. My daughter has no problem with horror films, GTA, Resident Evil etc... she dressed up as a corpse bride for Halloween that was genuinely scary (she won the costume competition :hee: ) ... but she is absolutely TERRIFIED of the Minecraft skeletons. Terrified. Like screeching, tears, full on panicked terror.


https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/world-fighters/images/4/4d/Skelly.png/revision/latest?cb=20160808215948

:think:

My point about parents was always aimed at the Mary Whitehouses and Helen Lovejoys of the world who think that everything and everyone should revolve and bend to the whims and needs of their child. The kinds of people that would complain to ofcom about a TV show instead of flicking over the channel and watching something else.

I don't think all parents should be responsible for shielding their children, like I said before, providing the child with the correct context is far more important. I just think that (like I also said before) the Marys and the Helens of parenting should take that responsibility of shielding their own kids since they tend to believe the world should change for their benefit. The world won't change for anyone and most parents understand that but I'd rather busybody parents take responsibility for their own methods of parenting rather than trying to force child friendliness upon the world.

[Cherie]

My point about parents was always aimed at the Mary Whitehouses and Helen Lovejoys of the world who think that everything and everyone should revolve and bend to the whims and needs of their child. The kinds of people that would complain to ofcom about a TV show instead of flicking over the channel and watching something else.

I don't think all parents should be responsible for shielding their children, like I said before, providing the child with the correct context is far more important. I just think that (like I also said before) the Marys and the Helens of parenting should take that responsibility of shielding their own kids since they tend to believe the world should change for their benefit. The world won't change for anyone and most parents understand that but I'd rather busybody parents take responsibility for their own methods of parenting rather than trying to force child friendliness upon the world.

No it wasn't, this was your point no point trying to dress it up now


It's incredibly easy to monitor and limit what your kids are doing online. There's settings on consoles that can prevent them from talking to strangers online or receiving messages and i'm sure there's passcode options so that kids can't simply switch off safety measures unless they know the code. Hell I'm fairly certain you can limit games with older age certificates so that child accounts can't access them.

There are plenty of options out there for parents that don't want their kids playing violent games or interacting with people online.

The advent of Smartphones haven't made monitoring children harder, it's easier than it used to be since there's **** tons of apps for monitoring children with technology that didn't exist before smartphones were a thing.

Finally, the act of pushing out a baby does not make a person superior to people who don't have kids nor does it give you a wealth of information that would otherwise be inaccessible to people without kids.

If parents are that concerned about what their kids are doing then there's plenty of options available to them as long as they can...you know... be bothered to do more than just complain.
__________________

[Tom4784]

No it wasn't, this was your point no point trying to dress it up now


It's incredibly easy to monitor and limit what your kids are doing online. There's settings on consoles that can prevent them from talking to strangers online or receiving messages and i'm sure there's passcode options so that kids can't simply switch off safety measures unless they know the code. Hell I'm fairly certain you can limit games with older age certificates so that child accounts can't access them.

There are plenty of options out there for parents that don't want their kids playing violent games or interacting with people online.

The advent of Smartphones haven't made monitoring children harder, it's easier than it used to be since there's **** tons of apps for monitoring children with technology that didn't exist before smartphones were a thing.

Finally, the act of pushing out a baby does not make a person superior to people who don't have kids nor does it give you a wealth of information that would otherwise be inaccessible to people without kids.

If parents are that concerned about what their kids are doing then there's plenty of options available to them as long as they can...you know... be bothered to do more than just complain.
__________________

You should really read posts PROPERLY before you quote them since nothing in that post contradicts what I've said.

[Cherie]

You should really read posts PROPERLY before you quote them since nothing in that post contradicts what I've said.

Nope, in a nutshell your point was parents should be responsible for what their children access, when i pointed out how on a practical level this was pretty much impossible you got all snippy and as per threw a few insults, and accused me of trolling, you then agreed with TS on much the same point I made, and then claimed you were talking about Mary Whitehouse types in an attempt to ingratiate yourself with him, :skull: in between all this you told me I should be worried about who my kids were mixing with :joker: Not sure if I was supposed to be insulted by that but I am not :smug:

[Cherie]

Neither should Dezzy need you to speak for him.

It's like North Korea around here at times with males trying to dictate who responds and how they respond :skull:

[Tom4784]

Nope, in a nutshell your point was parents should be responsible for what their children access, when i pointed out how on a practical level this was pretty much impossible you got all snippy and as per threw a few insults, and accused me of trolling, you then agreed with TS on much the same point I made, and then claimed you were talking about Mary Whitehouse types in an attempt to ingratiate yourself with him, :skull: in between all this you told me I should be worried about who my kids were mixing with :joker: Not sure if I was supposed to be insulted by that but I am not :smug:

This is the post that you quoted of mine

It's incredibly easy to monitor and limit what your kids are doing online. There's settings on consoles that can prevent them from talking to strangers online or receiving messages and i'm sure there's passcode options so that kids can't simply switch off safety measures unless they know the code. Hell I'm fairly certain you can limit games with older age certificates so that child accounts can't access them.

There are plenty of options out there for parents that don't want their kids playing violent games or interacting with people online.

The advent of Smartphones haven't made monitoring children harder, it's easier than it used to be since there's **** tons of apps for monitoring children with technology that didn't exist before smartphones were a thing.

Finally, the act of pushing out a baby does not make a person superior to people who don't have kids nor does it give you a wealth of information that would otherwise be inaccessible to people without kids.

If parents are that concerned about what their kids are doing then there's plenty of options available to them as long as they can...you know... be bothered to do more than just complain.

I made an important distinction there that you completely missed because, as per usual, you didn't read my posts properly. 'For parents that don't want their kids playing violent video games' not ALL parents.

You also cut off one half of that post in which I made the same distinction again.

It's up to parents to decide whether their kids are mature enough to handle mature content. It's easy enough to monitor what kids are doing and playing so if their parents have a problem with violent video games, it's up to them to moderate what they play.

You can't be all like 'Violent video games are bad for children but I can't be bothered to keep an eye on what they're playing!'

It's a parent's responsibility to know what their children are doing.


Another distinction that I made which you ignored or more likely didn't read.

You made a whole lot of assumptions there and none of them are correct. Try to actually read what I've said and not shove your poorly comprehended assumptions down my throat

If you are going to complain about violent video games, you can't expect the world to change for just for you. If you don't want kids to access violent video games then you have to be pro-active otherwise you have no grounds to complain if your kid plays or watches something you didn't want them to. You want to have your cake and eat it and guess what? You can't.

If you're that concerned about violent video games but not so concerned about who your child might be hanging out with then your priorities seem a bit borked. Your argument works against you, in that regard.

When have I ever mentioned anything about abductions or accidents? I've only ever said that parents shouldn't complain about violent video games if they can't be bothered to even look into something as elementary as parental controls. You have a habit of diving headfirst into the deep end with illogical and bizarre points that don't really relate to the topic when you are on the ropes.

Some more examples of me making a distinction that you ignored because it invalidated your reasons for your attacks or more likely you just didn't read. In case it's the latter I've also quoted the big post that I know you didn't read properly and even highlighted the distinction as well as own opinion on children and violent video games since you obviously couldn't be bothered to read it properly before.

I stand by my comment, Parental controls are easy and if your children are hanging out at someone else's house and you have a preference of the type of games or things they might play or watch then it's down to you to inform the other child's parents. It's common sense. If you are the kind of parent that doesn't want your child playing or watching things that are meant for a mature audience then you simply can't blame those things for existing, If you don't want your kids to see something then it's down to you to make sure they don't. I'm not sure why you are having so much difficulty with that.

I think it's dumb to shield kids like that, it's better to make sure they can differentiate between the game and reality and understand that violence in real life is not okay. I was always allowed to play and watch what I liked and I (like so many people) never had any problems because I knew it was just a game or a film or whatever.

I remember that thread and I love how you're throwing my comments out of context. I was basically being victim blamed in that thread because I said the customers are not always right and that people who work in retail have to deal with abuse from customers regularly and people were saying that, if I got abused then it was probably my fault as someone who works in retail. I said that you couldn't understand what it's like to work in retail and dealing with abusive customers if you've only ever been a customer. That's a fair comment, I wouldn't presume to tell a builder what it's like to build a house or tell a surgeon how to operate.

Parenting however is not a job and anyone can experience it and you don't have to have your own kids to understand what it's like to be responsible for a child or make suggestions.

Your last point is ridiculous and complete nonsense and it confirms something for me. You don't really know what you are arguing for or against in this thread since your main priority seems to be scoring points against me because you have just completely switched your stance on a dime in order to make one of the biggest reaches I've ever seen to suggest that I'm insulting Chewy when that's blatant to everyone that i'm not. Go back and read my posts PROPERLY and you'll see that I'm in agreement with Chewy. The 'bubble' comment is proof that you haven't really read or understood anything I've said since you think I'm endorsing strict observation over children when I'm not. Like I've said a few times, you can't blame something for existing if you don't want your children to see it but aren't willing to use the tools at your command to stop them. It's an easy enough point, or it would be if you actually read posts properly.

Step away from your device, take a breather. Go form an actual opinion on the matter that isn't 'I hate Dezzy so I'll oppose him on everything whether it makes sense or not'. it's apparent that your input in this thread is purely reactionary to me rather than you having any interest or an opinion about the subject matter since you actually haven't shared an opinion on it at all. Your first post was in support of jibes made be Sheriff towards me and every post sicne has been in response to me.

Do you actually have an opinion on the subject matter?

Your entire argument in this thread has been based on your own misunderstanding of my posts. I'll ignore the rest of that post of yours since it's just baiting and you've taken this topic off topic enough.

Now, do you actually have anything to add to the discussion of violent video games and themes? I'd love to hear your opinions on the issue.

[Brother Leon]

I started playing GTA games from Year 7 tbh as I got San Andreas for 2004 Xmas as I begged for it. My mum would watch me playing games up until I was about 15 or so, but she always trusted in her raising of me that playing violent games or watching gory movies wouldn't cloud my mind and it didn't.

Won't even lie, the only time it ever got awk was if a game got a little sexual. :laugh:

[Cherie]

This is the post that you quoted of mine



I made an important distinction there that you completely missed because, as per usual, you didn't read my posts properly. 'For parents that don't want their kids playing violent video games' not ALL parents.

You also cut off one half of that post in which I made the same distinction again.



Another distinction that I made which you ignored or more likely didn't read.



Some more examples of me making a distinction that you ignored because it invalidated your reasons for your attacks or more likely you just didn't read. In case it's the latter I've also quoted the big post that I know you didn't read properly and even highlighted the distinction as well as own opinion on children and violent video games since you obviously couldn't be bothered to read it properly before.



Your entire argument in this thread has been based on your own misunderstanding of my posts. I'll ignore the rest of that post of yours since it's just baiting and you've taken this topic off topic enough.

Now, do you actually have anything to add to the discussion of violent video games and themes? I'd love to hear your opinions on the issue.

Happy for videos of any category to be played by children who are mature enough and whose parents sanction it, my eldest son played 18 videos from aged 11, my youngest son was okay with certain games not with others it's not a one size fits all scenario, they are both old enough to make their own decisions now :hee:

[Tom4784]

Happy for videos of any category to be played by children who are mature enough and whose parents sanction it, my eldest son played 18 videos from aged 11, my youngest son was okay with certain games not with others it's not a one size fits all scenario, they are both old enough to make their own decisions now :hee:

Good, I agree with that approach and with Leon's mother's approach.

Like I said before, when it comes to things like violent content and kids, providing context is more important than shielding them although, like you said, each kid is different.

[Headie]

Sony had a games conference on Tuesday in which they showed off a slate of upcoming games but two trailers in particular have caused a bit of a stir which are the two below.

UzdNECcio54

YtPmIBqRwQU

Most of the controversy is centred around the second trailer and depiction of domestic violence with people saying that this kind of story doesn't have a place in gaming or that there should have been warnings ahead of the trailer being shown (There were no warnings that the show would contain content unsuitable for certain audiences).

Do you think the controversy is warranted? Are games too violent? Should games attempt to tackle difficult themes? Should there have been more warnings when it comes to conferences like this that are streamed to thousands of people?

Mess @ these being the only two games I've been keeping tabs on since they were announced :skull: I'm still gonna buy them lmao

[Jamie89]

The clips are pretty violent but I don't have an issue with it. In both cases the violence seems to be part of the story rather than for the sake of it. And the actual messages are pretty positive. The character in the first clip being saved for intervening and stopping further violence against that other character, and the robot in the 2nd clip stopping the dad using violence against his child. So the games seem to be using violence as a device rather than promoting it.
On the issue of ratings and kids, I don't actually think violence in video games causes real life violence or influences kids to become violent, even kids know the difference between reality and a video game, they're not given enough credit sometimes. And if the violence frightens them so that they wouldn't enjoy the game, then they won't want to play it. I just don't think it's that much of an issue.

[Toy Soldier]

The issue people have had with the second one seems to be more about there not being a warning before the trailer was played to a crowd, given that the scenes depicted could be distressing for people who have experienced domestic violence. The game itself would likely have that listed on the back (under the age rating, it usually lists a few of the reasons for the rating). But yeah it's certainly not glorifying domestic violence, it's clearly against it. But that's where the confusion and double standards come in; people will accept domestic violence storylines in film and on TV but feel that in games it's "exploitative"... Which is mainly down to people not understanding how gaming has developed as a form of media over the last couple of decades.

The game is looking excellent though if it lives up to that trailer and actually features meaningful branching choices like that.

[Tom4784]

Not having a warning at the start of the show that it would contain scenes of violence and difficult themes are Sony's only mistake.

[chuff me dizzy]

Maybe, just maybe, parents should pay attention to the age rating before buy little Timmy a copy of Grand Theft Auto V, you know, just maybe.

:clap1: The onus is on the parent to check what their child is doing, but sad thing is a lot of parents are too selfish to bother nowadays, or too busy sat playing computer games themselves to care, they treat the media as a babysitter