[OT] GTA3 & Kids

sionnach

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
Mine is short and to the point while on the other hand sceptre's is totally lacking in any sort of proof and is just his personal fellings.

sceptre was asked for his opinion and he gave it, while there may not be any hard evidence as of yet to back up his claims he made some very good points and contributed well to the thread

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
Millions have played GTA 3 including my 9yr old cousin and millions have NOT gone on killing sprees

I don't think that's the point here, We're not directly equating playing this game with something as extreme as a killing spree, but rather what impact this will have on a 7 year old's perceptions of right and wrong, and what acceptable behaviour is

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
if the family is a caring one then the child will turn out normal.

If the family is caring, they won't let their seven year old play a rated 18 game

Q_Ball

My feelings on the subject, and i've expressed this when selling GTA:VC when i was working in GAME at the time, are that because it's rated 18's by the BBFC and not by the ERSP, it's equivalent to an 18 rated film. If you wouldn't let your child watch an 18 rated movie, then you're hypocritical if you let them play the game as they are rated on the same criteria. My other main point was that its 18's for a reason. It does contain adult theme's, it is an adult game. I seriously doubt that your child will pick up on theme's like prostitution, but they will pick up on the graphic violence. Like Sceptre said...

it's different when you're talking about someone at 7 who hasn't actually properly formed a moral code in his brain

I agree on this. We spend most of our lives discerning right from wrong, be it stealing and fighting to cheating on a loved one and driving incorrectly. Every little thing we see and do we judge, even if we dont want to. Everyone has an opinion on something, even if we dont wish to express it. Your child probably wont understand what they see on screen and at 7 more than likely wont apply that to real life. It's just that i know a particular 5 year old whose dad let him watch the matrix and for the next week went about pretending he was Neo.

I'm not a subscriber to the idea that violent games = violent children, but i do believe that it has to have an effect somewhere. Even if it desensitises (sp?) the child, thats still having an effect. Some children are more prone to influence to others, thats a given.

I'm not a parent and these opinions are strictly my own. From my experience selling GTA:VC, parents either dont care, are ignorant, are naieve or a combination. I wouldnt let my 7 year old play GTA. I dont think its appropriate. I think sionnach is right.

If the family is caring, they won't let their seven year old play a rated 18 game

On a side note, if a child is allowed to play an 18's game or watch an 18's movie, even just once, you're leaving yourself open to "but you let me watch/play so-and-so before!" arguments. Also now that the child has played it, you "may" seem like the bad guy for taking it away. Also kids have a habit of wanting something that they cant have. At 7 they are young and impressionable, a solution may be to get them interested in something else and get their attention away from the game? Kids forget what they dont miss.

Good Luck

swiss

I'm going to jump on the sceptre/Q-ball bandwagon as well.

Let me put it this way. Consider all of the crap you've probably seen on the internet. I'm talking about goatse, tubgirl, and whatever you pull off rotton.com. I would say that all that material probably has had a desensitising effect on you. It certainly has on me, insofar as I can't think of a single image that really shocks me anymore (and no that is not an invitation to try to send me such an image).

The point I am making is that even if the effect is much milder, this game will probably have a similar effect on your son. At the moment I think that game classifications are a little crazy, and I can tell you that when I was younger, one of my pet hates was older people censoring material from me because they deemed it was 'inappropriate'. But some things do clearly pass the borders of taste, and this child is at an age that is almost certainly too young to appreciate the full implications of all the adult issues that arise in that game.

It is a judgement call. Personally, I would have no problem with someone who is 14-15 playing that game. I might even be okay with a 12 year old running down grannies in the game. But 7 is IMO just too young to risk spoiling his innocence in that manner. My advice is to buy him a copy of The Simpsons Hit and Run (or something more appropriate, I'm not really well up on kids games) and play GTA:VC yourself .

DrEvil

I think that 7 is too young for GTA. You should definitly take it off him.

If you are having issues with his mother about it. (like she doesn't like you imposing your ideas, she feels you don't respect her parenting etc..). Maybe you could persuade her by getting her to watch Scarface. After she watches it then ask her if she'd like her son to watch it or play a game based on it and I bet she'll say no, then you could explain to her how Vice City has based a few scenes and ideas on Scarface

bizmark

Get F1 raceing/Crazy taxi or something tis the same thing with out the shooting swearing killing and er shaging (theres shaging in gta??) if you feel that way daz.Or better yet a gamecube and Pikmin mario Zelda Great games and very child friendly

dahamsta

This thread is quite funny when I look at it, most of the posters that think GTA is AO for kids seem to be either a bit fick or stroppy and rude, exactly the kind of attributes I don't want my son to have. My problem now is convincing his mother. I'll take that over to Parenting where it belongs.

Thanks for the replies.

adam

dahamsta

By the way, extra gory screencaps and vidcaps are most welcome. Post 'em here or email 'em to boards AT beecher.net.

adam

OfflerCrocGod

You are all treating 7 year olds as if they are retarded; everyone of you againts the child playing GTA3 are all saying that the childs mind will be formed for him by a game. And real life will have no formative effect on him?, are the 7 yr olds I know and talk to (cousins friends, neighbours) just different - as in they dont dribble and dont need to be told what they see on TV is not actually reality. Why dont you actually ask your son about the game?, what he thinks about it, does he think what is happening in the game is right?. I'll bet you you haven't even though about talking to him - cause he is clearly to stupid to understand - you have little faith in your child.

dahamsta

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
You are all treating 7 year olds as if they are retarded; everyone of you againts the child playing GTA3 are all saying that the childs mind will be formed for him by a game. And real life will have no formative effect on him?

You're living in Compton I take it? People don't steal cars in my local reality, or shoot people. They do swear a bit, but not around my kid if I can help it.

Out of curiosity, what age are you?

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
are the 7 yr olds I know and talk to (cousins friends, neighbours) just different - as in they dont dribble and dont need to be told what they see on TV is not actually reality.

You're imagining things again OCG. No-one has suggested a merging of fantasy and reality, just that exposure to extreme violence and "adult themes" could be damaging to a child. The film ratings system has been around for ages and I'm pretty sure everyone I know thinks that it's a good idea, and uses it to help decide which films are suitable and which aren't. Sometimes they override the ratings, but I don't think any of them would let a 7yo watch, for example, an 18 rated movie.

Do you think the ratings system is inappropriate? If so, please explain why. If not, why shouldn't the same apply to games? Aren't games in fact more immersive than movies?

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
Why dont you actually ask your son about the game?, what he thinks about it, does he think what is happening in the game is right?. I'll bet you you haven't even though about talking to him - cause he is clearly to stupid to understand - you have little faith in your child.

There was me thinking that OCG knows absolutely nothing about either me or my child, and it turns out he's been my best friend for years and knows everything about me! Wow!

You're projecting my man, wildly inaccurately. If that's a real bet though, I'll take you up on it, let's say €5000. Pay up.

adam

ixoy

As a kid, I saw the Nightmare on Elm Street series of movies. I'm not densenitised to violence and would never hurt a person - I find the thought abhorrent. I'm sure being given means to gun people down, as a child, would similarly have not had a negative effect on me.
Having said that however, the ratings system is there because not everyone is me. It's there to make a general rule, as are all laws, that's for the good of a country's citizens. Despite having been exposed to 18s movies as a child I still think that it's a fair system (I just don't agree with films being outright banned).
Same goes for games. I think it's fair to have the system in place. Parents should be taught to equate that an 18s game is for the same audience as an 18s movies - I think their minds, often, haven't quite caught up with the similarites. Still none of this should ever excuse the ridiculous court case in the US where the kids are blaming the game they shouldn't have had, for their actions (although, if I recall correctly, the age thing is just a guide in the US and not enforced).

OfflerCrocGod

Originally posted by dahamsta
You're living in Compton I take it? People don't steal cars in my local reality, or shoot people. They do swear a bit, but not around my kid if I can help it.

And you dont read what I say...what I meant was that the experiences your child has with REAL ppl will have more affect on him then a game.

Out of curiosity, what age are you?

You're imagining things again OCG. No-one has suggested a merging of fantasy and reality, just that exposure to extreme violence and "adult themes" could be damaging to a child. The film ratings system has been around for ages and I'm pretty sure everyone I know thinks that it's a good idea, and uses it to help decide which films are suitable and which aren't. Sometimes they override the ratings, but I don't think any of them would let a 7yo watch, for example, an 18 rated movie.

Yes and YOU were the one who posted here asking for OUR opinions - when it was obvious that you had already made your mind up - why the hell did you post your question, when you had already come up with your answer?

Do you think the ratings system is inappropriate? If so, please explain why. If not, why shouldn't the same apply to games? Aren't games in fact more immersive than movies?

What i think about it doesn't matter we are talking about how much the game can influence your child to the negative - there have been some nice verbose posts how it *could* *possibly* harm him in some vague way. What there hasn't been is proof.

There was me thinking that OCG knows absolutely nothing about either me or my child, and it turns out he's been my best friend for years and knows everything about me! Wow!

Thank You!; so if the average person on these boards doesn't know squat about you or your situation why are you posting - decide yourself dont agonise about it all over Boards.ie

You're projecting my man, wildly inaccurately. If that's a real bet though, I'll take you up on it, let's say €5000. Pay up.

The first part makes zero sense, the rest well if you are such a bril father why do you need someone else on some board parenting for you?. I'm saying it's up to you to decide - not us - so dont ask, we would all handle the situation differently, you wont get any sort of consensus on Boards.ie:p.

sceptre

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
there have been some nice verbose posts how it *could* *possibly* harm him in some vague way. What there hasn't been is proof.

Obviously you're not going to get proof in advance that exposing Adam's seven year old child in particular to a violent game without a moral base is going to result in psychological damage to that child in particular. Neither are we going to get any proof that exposing any given seven year old child to violent anything in particular is not going to result in psychological damage to that child.

However, given that you've asked, Rowell Huesman published a paper in Developmental Psychology last Spring outlining a 22 year long study that indicated that violent behaviour and desensitisation to violence was more prevelant among those who had been submitted to a diet of violent entertainment as children. I've got a photocopy of the paper somewhere, I'm not too sure if there's an online version. We're not necessarily talking Tom and Jerry here (though the Huesman paper included the Road Runner cartoons), which while violent enough to be spoofed in the Simpsons obviously represents a cartoon cat and a cartoon mouse inflicting punishment on one another as opposed to a human joining in the fun. It's different from a situation where a cartoon human is shooting at other cartoon humans and having sex with cartoon hookers as well as beating the crap out of cartoon bystanders. Children essentially learn by imitation and in the pre-adolescent stage where the brain hasn't formed a moral code (as I mentioned in passing above) the media and behaviour they're exposed to (with regard to media, particularly the imagery they're exposed to) is rather important. That much anyone should be able to see.

Before the age of seven is even more important as for most children before that age they are completely unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. The period between seven and about 10 is still rather important as the new ability to distinguish between what they perceive to be real and what they perceive to be performance leads to their moral code developing rather dramatically.

I'm not implying that any children are going to turn into raging psychopaths after being exposed to violent entertainment at any age. The Huesman study examined the behaviour of people in the home primarily and found that people were more likely to behave in an aggressive manner following high exposure levels in their pre-adolescence. Why wouldn't they? From an early age they've become conditioned to imitate violent characters. While some psychologists would disagree slightly, the majority is clearly in favour as the American Psychological Association had concluded that watching violent media promotes aggressive behaviour in children and appears to promote and retain that aggressive behaviour into adulthood. Why even take the risk?

No-one's suggesting that children be coccooned well into adulthood, or even coccooned at all. Exposing a child (and we /are/ talking about a child) to such adult themes isn't appropriate and any dufus should be able to see that. Would you let your seven year old child watch Kill Bill? Goodfellas? Debbie Does Dallas? How about letting him play Custer's Revenge (screenshot) on your old Atari 2600. Wouldn't that be fun?

How about some proof or basic independent research that violent vijo games don't promote or cause violent behaviour? if you can't find any I won't cry foul but don't blame the rest of us or categorise us as Tipper Gores for stating the blindingly obvious. It's inappropriate for a child of seven for the reasons I stated above as my own regardless of causal factors or not. The fact that research indicates that causation appears to exist is just a bonus, the obvious is blinding on its own terms.

OfflerCrocGod

Originally posted by sceptre
However, given that you've asked, Rowell Huesman published a paper in Developmental Psychology last Spring outlining a 22 year long study that indicated that violent behaviour and desensitisation to violence was more prevelant among those who had been submitted to a diet of violent entertainment as children.

Ye read up on it were is his control group?, 500+ were originally interviewed in the 70's and only 340~ were then later interviewed, I'm sorry but I dont consider "Social Science" a science and I dont consider an experiment like this without a control group a real experiment.

You see that's my problem with that study there is MORE violence on TV MORE violence in games(well it looks better) and yet society is just fine - actually it's BETTER off then 25 years ago!. How can that be when this study of yours points towards the inevitable collapse in society ( it does he says its cyclical and it reinforces itself - eventually we will all be violent madmen:rolleyes: ). The majority of violent acts are not influenced by television, however they are influenced by the pressures of the enviroment around them. If you grew up in a family household where you witnessed spouse abuse or were abused as a child, chances are you will do the same. It may not happen when things are good, however, the minute the pressure is on ”Dr. Jeckyl” will come out.

Funny stuff. Violence is a complex problem connected to many factors, including class, race, and economic problems it's NOT an easy one root problem were we can all blame the Xbox "It was the console it made me do it!!!".

dahamsta

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
Violence is a complex problem connected to many factors, including class, race, and economic problems it's NOT an easy one root problem were we can all blame the Xbox "It was the console it made me do it!!!".

And again, nobody says it did. And that's the third time I've had to point out an overreaching statement of yours. You can twist people's statements and opinions all you like, but it won't endear them to your opinion. In fact the opposite is true.

You give out to me about preconceptions, which I don't deny because it's obvious from my first post that I was simply looking for validation of my belief that violent video games /could/ be harmful. (And personally, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution with my child.)

But you don't exactly listen to reason yourself, do you? From the beginning, your posts have been rude and condescending. Think about that from my POV for a second: What does that say to me about gamers, particularly gamers that defend a childs "right" to play violent games?

adam

adnans

yo

adnans

sceptre

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
500+ were originally interviewed in the 70's and only 340~ were then later interviewed

That's what tends to happen with studies that are years apart.

I'm sorry but I dont consider "Social Science" a science and I dont consider an experiment like this without a control group a real experiment.

Well if you're going to dump the whole field as a defence there's nothing I can do for you. I didn't bring up alchemy or astrology.

I notice you didn't address the points I brought up myself though.

OfflerCrocGod

Originally posted by adnans
yo

Originally posted by dahamsta
You give out to me about preconceptions, which I don't deny because it's obvious from my first post that I was simply looking for validation of my belief that violent video games /could/ be harmful. (And personally, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution with my child.)

So why bother with this thread?, what was the point?!.

So sceptre you say kids learn from imitation which is true who would they be more likely to imitate their parents/real humans around them or a video game?. I believe they would do what the humans are doing EVEN if what the humans are doing is the opposite to what is going on in a videogame. The video games effect gets negated by human actions, basically if the the env the child is growing up in is good, the game, GTA3 wont affect him. I'm not saying that it's good for him(its a waste of time and he'll become short-sighted) but that you are attributing to much psychological power to a game.

Anyway in the end Adam has made his choice and it's up to him to do what he wants.

dahamsta

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
So why bother with this thread?, what was the point?!.

You just quoted "the point". I think and believe lots of things, but I've been wrong many, many times. So I posted to make sure that I wasn't overreacting. If I'd seen more considered opinions saying that I was, I would have either accepted them and taken more time to look into the subject, or possibly even argued - politely - with them if I still thought they were wrong. I don't need to do either, because from my perspective the considered opinions tend to agree with me.

Your opinion counts for little, unfortunately, because of the way you state it. Your very first line attempted to denigrate my grasp of the english language, for example, which is a bizarre way of trying to get your point across. What incentive is there for me to continue reading the rest of your post? Whereas people will read sceptre's opinion, because he's obviously thought carefully about what's he wants to say and how he says it. A little politeness goes a long way.

Perhaps you'd have better people skills if you played a few less violent games?

adam

Stephen

Perhaps you'd have better people skills if you played a few less violent games?

troll++;

dahamsta

Originally posted by Stephen
troll++;

< $partingShot;

Fionnan

If that child was growing up in a good environment he wouldn't be let play computer games til he was 10,(maybe the cr*p educational ones when younger,dicourage obesity ), and he certainly wouldn't be allowed play GTA3 at age 7 in a good home