PDA

View Full Version : Games should have a limit?



Tanatos
12-04-2010, 09:30 AM
Recently games have reached an almost incredible level of reality. They are now so real that sometimes they even simulate crimes.

If by one side you can say that there is freedom of creation, and if it's injures you you have to turn your face, by the other should we accept games that make apology of crimes as rape, torture, pedophilia?

So, you think games should have a limit or the freedom of creation prevails over these question?

Ps.: Please ignore any gramatical mistake

Ceta
12-04-2010, 10:17 AM
To my knowledge there are limitations in place on what a game can and cannot include. While crimes like robbery and murder are acceptable, things that would cause red flags amongst parents (such as rape, torture and pedophilia) are not. I could be wrong, however. If there aren't any rules, I'm sure that most developers leave it to common sense when it comes to what they put into the games since the games need to pass through ratings boards before they are allowed to hit the market.

From a personal standpoint, I think it's best if these sorts of limitations are in place. There needs to be a line in order to let one know what they can and cannot do. However, I only support this up to a certain level. If the rules are too strict and the games start to suck horribly as a result, I will be very upset.

Tanatos
12-04-2010, 10:41 AM
The restrictions depends on the country. For example here in Brazil pedophilia is forbiden even with an representation of a child (games, animes, cartoons, etc.), but not in Japan (example is the most comon for of pornography there, the lolicon. But it's other subject) .

Rapelay for example is a game that have rape and pedophilia. It was severely criticized here, but the game wasn't forbiden in most coutries.

Even GTA were forbiden here, sure everybody played, but you hardly will find it for sell.

violin
12-04-2010, 11:57 AM
Most people that play games are kids. In that case there must be a limit. And believe me a game would not look less interesting if you remove a crime scene or make it less realistic. Games should not be focused on being interested by showing violince etc. It's just an excuse that you can not think of something interesting. And since all games are played by kids (even if they are rated aduls only) all games should be made to be educational because kids learn by observing the environment. In that case it may be appropriate to have some sort of violince but only if the games leads the player to the conclusion that this is a bad think to do.

nextweek
12-04-2010, 03:00 PM
Most people that play games are kids. In that case there must be a limit. And believe me a game would not look less interesting if you remove a crime scene or make it less realistic. Games should not be focused on being interested by showing violince etc. It's just an excuse that you can not think of something interesting. And since all games are played by kids (even if they are rated aduls only) all games should be made to be educational because kids learn by observing the environment. In that case it may be appropriate to have some sort of violince but only if the games leads the player to the conclusion that this is a bad think to do.


I highly disagree with this....
Games have violence to create atmosphere. Yes, it isn't totally moral to emerge people into a violent atmosphere, but when a person creates a game they don't expect a five year old to be playing it.
Parents are responsible for what their child plays. I think that parents these days don't quite know what the extent of the rating scale is and what the difference between "Cartoon Violence" and "Graphic Violence" is. Parent's should educate themselves about video games before they let their child play it. I do agree that there should be a limit of what can be shown, and unknown to many there is. There are countless games out there that are shut-down or banned because they go to far. A good example of this is Modern Warfare 2, where there was some question about the Airport scene. The game went throughout a lot of questioning before it was allowed to be sold. Video Games are another form of entertainment. It goes a long the same boundaries as movies as far as what they can put out, since it's like a interactive film. And no most people who play games are all ages. You got people playing games online who are teens to old. And again, the only reason a child would be playing violent video games is because their PARENTS let them. The child really doesn't get a say in what they play because in the end it's the parent's job to tell them. The problem with our society today is that parents can't say "No" to their child anymore. They don't know how to stand up to them and tell them "No this is too violent!" The problem isn't video games just like the problem isn't the films that are being released. Parents need to learn how to be parents!!! I grew up with games. My parents knew that I wasn't ready for violence. So they made the decision to buy me a N64 instead of a playstation, because the system had more family friendly games at the time. When I grew up more, I bought a Xbox because I was ready for it. So yes, some games are too violent for kids. So don't let them play it! Leave the more mature games to those who are mature (M) and those games that are for everyone to kids (E)!

Hayashida
12-04-2010, 03:09 PM
Sometimes they simulate crimes? Probably the majority of games have people breaking some kind of law in it.

Blue_Dragon
12-04-2010, 03:22 PM
I must be kid, since I still play video games.

But anyway, I think it depends. I mean, I agree with most, that it's disturbing to include things like pedophilia, especially if that's the premise of the game. But when it comes to violence and crime, I think people need to stick to ratings. You can create a really good story, depending on how you use "taboo" elements. Not everyone wants to play a click and learn game--I really have to disagree on the statement that kids are the only ones playing video-games, since my whole circle of friends play games and we're either in or out of college.

I think it's the parents responsibility to keep an eye on what their kids are playing, and stop expecting the rest of the world to accommodate their laziness or ignorance. So I guess I'm agreeing with Nextweek. We can liken it to books. Should we have the right to censor books, just because a child could read it? Ban books? I think any censoring should come from within the household, not the government.

A good example of a very life-like videogame is that Heavy Rain. I mean, it's a thriller and first person game. Very realistic, and yes, it's got some very disturbing content, but it's not for kids. It's for people old enough to deal with the subject matter.

violin
12-04-2010, 04:00 PM
You all have a point. But since the internet is so free right now. How a parent is going to control his kid? My parents didn't knew how to use a computer and even if they knew that I should not play some games there is no way they stop me from downloading them and playing them.

Tanatos
12-04-2010, 04:56 PM
You all have a point. But since the internet is so free right now. How a parent is going to control his kid? My parents didn't knew how to use a computer and even if they knew that I should not play some games there is no way they stop me from downloading them and playing them.



I agree, sometimes the parents don't even know what their kids are playing. I always played games 16+ (since I was 10). My parents never censored me because the image of games they have is the ones for Nintendo (nintendo relly do games for childs).

Psy
12-04-2010, 05:30 PM
That is still a parents fault.If a parent is going to allow a child to play with somthing or somewhere they know nothing about then they are not being very good parents. Its easy to keep a kid from playing games online you see what you do is DONT LET THEM ON A COMPUTER! There is allso tons of programs that limit what can be done by a user on a computer and logs everything that they do.
The whole "Video games cause violence" thing is stupid. If you dont explain what reality and make believe are you are messing your kids up and what they do is your fault. (I actually explained to my little sisters about actors "Playing pretend" on tv and thats not how they really live and stuff so they would understand the concept of reality and make believe) Games are no diffrent and need to be explained to kids that they arent real. There is a diffrence between playing pretend and actually doing them (like pretending to shoot someone with a gun while playing cops and robbers or somthing and actually doing it).

Blue_Dragon
12-04-2010, 07:54 PM
Yeah. For instance, my nephew is only 5, but when he was allowed to watch Sponge Bob (I hate this ignorant dribble, but I respect it's right to be on TV...or at least in existence) and he started hitting kids and us, and so he was no longer allowed to watch it, everything was explained to him, and now he's fine.

Point is, if you don't pay attention or watch what your kids are doing, then they're not gonna know the difference. I must have been shelter or something, cause I wasn't even allowed to watch Gumby cause my mom thought it was too stupid for us. She always knew what we were doing, so we didn't get into much trouble. And we made it through High School without killing anyone! Shock! It's not hard to know what your kids are doing, so long as you actually pay attention to them. Most parents are too lazy, don't know how to parent, or are preoccupied by unimportant stuff now.

*I'm not saying anyone's parents here are like that, I'm just saying, if someone's concerned about what their kid is watching, they need to be in the know. It's not hard to find out.

Ozzaharwood
12-05-2010, 06:45 PM
It's not the games that do the damage, it's the way the kid is brought up. I had played a tonne of bad games when I was little and watched gory/bad movies and I never did anything violent or against the law. It was because I was brought up right, not because I didn't play those games.

(I am also not saying anyone's parents here are like that and I agree with Blue Dragon)

jubeh
12-06-2010, 04:10 AM
Most people that play games are kids.

Just came in here to drop this off.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2009.pdf

The average game player age is 35. Only a quarter are under the age of 18.

Alexander_Hamilton
12-06-2010, 04:28 AM
Games are like any other art form. There is stuff for kids, there is stuff for adults. You can't pass laws against games with certain subjects but allow it in books and movies.

jubeh
12-06-2010, 04:48 AM
And believe me a game would not look less interesting if you remove a crime scene or make it less realistic. Games should not be focused on being interested by showing violince etc. It's just an excuse that you can not think of something interesting.

This is a p bad argument man. You're saying that every time there is violence in a game it's an excuse. Can you not think of any games where the violence has a very deliberate effect?

Hint hint no more heroes.

If you haven't played the game I don't want to spoil anything but if the game weren't as violent as it was, the point would have been lost.

To say that violence can't be used artisticly is to deny that anything has artistic value.


And since all games are played by kids (even if they are rated aduls only) all games should be made to be educational because kids learn by observing the environment.

Why why why should developers have to pigeonhole themselves for an audience that shouldn't experience their work in the first place. That is just silly.

Would be porn be better if it always ended with an interesting fact like GI Joe?


In that case it may be appropriate to have some sort of violince but only if the games leads the player to the conclusion that this is a bad think to do.

I half agree with this and I half don't. I happen to subscribe to the unpopular opinion that sometimes violence is the answer.

On the other hand I like it when a game punishes you for being heartless and murdering innocents. I really dislike the god of war games because kratos kills innocent people along with the bad ones. It's a really frustrating thing because you have no control over it. He just does it, and you're supposed to think he's a badass when really it's just sociopathic.

Also I want to point out that you could say I was brought up "incorrectly" but to this day I have not committed any acts of violence or theft. You don't get to pick and choose your parents, but you do get to decide what kind of person you want to be.

I mean unless you have a mental disorder or something.

Hayashida
12-06-2010, 02:09 PM
I think anyone who has played NMH would agree that violence can be awesome

jubeh
12-06-2010, 03:23 PM
Well I wouldn't say it's awesome but it does have a deliberate effect.

It's like in dragonball z when frieza killed krillin. Killing him was bad enough, but then he holds up his severed head right in front of goku. If that doesn't illicit some sort of emotional response from you you are probably a robot.

Hayashida
12-06-2010, 03:41 PM
I guess that's where you and I differ, Jubeh, because I would say it's awesome.

Blue_Dragon
12-07-2010, 01:20 AM
What's NMH? I could google it, but I fear to think what would come up with just those letters.

jubeh
12-07-2010, 04:01 AM
No more heroes. Surrealist action game for the wii by Suda 51.

DemonKaiser93
12-07-2010, 09:17 PM
Well depends

-First, what kinda violence restrictions.

I mean, I played Mortal Kombat when I was like 5, Resident evil at 10, American McGee's Alice at 14.

It depends on the kind of kid, I mean, I know that s**t like pedophilia and rape are bad, I even hate it, but in videogames and anime, well, I like it, I've played RapeLay since I was 15, I like it, but not for that I'm going to go raping little 9 year olds, I mean it's a game.

Not because a kid sees it in a game it's going to do it, and the job of a parent is to acknowledge the kid what the deal is, Like where the baby's come from, it's better to talk about that like when the kid is 5 or 6 years old because that way the kid doesn't get it with perversion, but like something normal. So I don't think that games must have a limit, they just need like a warning of the games content, like the ratings have, so that way, you know exactly what your buying (or downloading , I dont even care), but just telling the children that is a game and not to try imitating the action seen in said games.

P.S: used to play Mortal Kombat 2 all the time with my mom, she always kicked my ass.

NinjaSteel_Runner
12-08-2010, 06:51 AM
To my knowledge there are limitations in place on what a game can and cannot include. While crimes like robbery and murder are acceptable, things that would cause red flags amongst parents (such as rape, torture and pedophilia) are not. I could be wrong, however. If there aren't any rules, I'm sure that most developers leave it to common sense when it comes to what they put into the games since the games need to pass through ratings boards before they are allowed to hit the market.

From a personal standpoint, I think it's best if these sorts of limitations are in place. There needs to be a line in order to let one know what they can and cannot do. However, I only support this up to a certain level. If the rules are too strict and the games start to suck horribly as a result, I will be very upset.


But then you have the movie industry in which they have no limitations kids will
act what they see on the TV rather then the video games,

the movie & TV industry Had zero limitations on such rape,murder even sometimes brutal ones which they had to edit those parts in the scene.

Video games do not cause violence.

Every video game developer should have rights of creative no matter what type of a game it is.

Blue_Dragon
12-08-2010, 03:34 PM
This is kinda related. Ninja Steal reminded me of this.

I wish movie theaters would actually enforce their own rules. If a movie is R or PG-13, I'm sick of this crap where if the parent is in attendance with the 1 year old, it's okay.

No, it's not okay. You know why? Because even though you get the warning to shut off your cellphone and leave the theater if the baby starts crying THEY NEVER LEAVE.I swear, if a movie's inappropriate for a kid, he shouldn't be there. I had to listen to screaming babies and scared kids when I went to see the new Harry Potter, and trust me, I wasted my $8 dollars. I hate how everyone else's rights are infringed upon by stupid selfish people who want to see something even at the cost of traumatizing their kid and ruining the film for others.

And the thing that really ticked me, is that the stupid woman would leave just before I was getting up to rat on them (cause yeah, I'm that big of a b*tch if I'm spending $20 on a film including the ridiculous cost of drinks and popcorn.) Then she came back and the same thing happened! Get a baby sitter. A relative or something.

Sorry, I had to vent on that. But it's the same idea. The film didn't need to be censored, the audience needed to be filtered.

DemonKaiser93
12-08-2010, 06:13 PM
That's a good point

Ceta
12-11-2010, 09:41 PM
But then you have the movie industry in which they have no limitations kids will
act what they see on the TV rather then the video games,
What is seen in movies and what is seen in video games are roughly about the same. Violence and things of that nature are of course blatantly obvious, but for things like rape, creative license is used in order to help the viewer imply that it is happening. Regardless of the source, kids will see and act but, sadly, many people seem to fear videogames more and as a result lash out at one but not the other.


the movie & TV industry Had zero limitations on such rape,murder even sometimes brutal ones which they had to edit those parts in the scene.
I disagree with you on this. If the movie and TV industry had zero limitations, you'd see rape scenes and scenes of that nature without any restriction. The reason things are done the way they are in movies is not because they had to edit those parts. In addition to being limited by ratings boards, companies must take into account what will and will not make them money after the product is released. The more graphic the product, the less it will sell if the parents know what's in it.


Video games do not cause violence.
In some instances, yes, it does. While a majority of gamers can understand the difference between reality and fantasy, there are some who are not. You yourself may fall into the category of the former, but it doesn't mean there aren't kids who fall into the latter. Thinking there aren't those who can be influenced by video games (or TV and movies) is merely wishful thinking. Put down the game controller and read the news every once in a while. You'd be surprised at what you see.


Every video game developer should have rights of creative no matter what type of a game it is.
Video game companies have the right to be very creative with their products so long as they are not stepping over certain boundaries. The boundaries that are set, however, are not all through the ratings boards; common sense and knowledge play a part as well. For the times where a company does go a little too far, however, it is usually in the best interest of all parties -- developer/publisher and consumer -- if they are asked to change something or accept a higher rating (for instance, going from a Teen rating to an Adult rating) if change is impossible. (The Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas "Hot Coffee" issue comes to mind at this point.)

Fenn
12-11-2010, 10:10 PM
No limit. Let me explain.

There are already "limits" in place from the start when games are made. These limits are based on the people who play the games. Put it this way; if a game with intense sexual themes and gore is going to make millions of dollars, that means there are millions of people who think it is okay to view or "virtually perform" those actions. It moves beyond the mediums of experience, such as movies, games etc, and onto the values of the people buying and playing them.

Actions which are legal in games but illegal in reality are illegal because they actually effect other humans in real life, but in video games its just pixels. For an adult with a fully developed value system, chances are if they're willing to do the action in a video game they either will do it in real life, or want to but fear the repercussions. The one exception is children playing games.

Children are still learning, still exploring their world. Thus, they will have a tougher time determining right from wrong. The solution: parents! Like many of you said, parents must be on top of their children's actions. And don't tell me they can't Xbox and Wii both have parental controls, and I'm fairly certain they can set a password. They can look at website history on the computer to see where their children have been surfing. If they realize their child has been abusing his computer priveleges or turning off parental controls, that privelege is taken away. If a parent has no time at all to watch their child, they are either in dire living circumstances (forgiven) or too lazy/unconcerned (inexcusable).

You can't force people to believe in the same values as you; you can only try to convince them. If adults want to go play disgusting, repulsive games, and developers want to make said games, I say go ahead. They aren't hurting anyone else.

Make it the store's decision whether they want to advertise or sell these games, and parent's decision whether they want their kids playing said games.

Hayashida
12-11-2010, 11:16 PM
I would say video games cause violence because I had my own experience just earlier. I was playing Gran Turismo 5 and I was trying to do that stupid jeff gordon nascar thing and I had to go through this pylon course in 13.300 seconds and couldn't do it no matter how hard I tried. The closest I got was 13.313. Needless to say I got angry and started screaming profanities in my head and flipped off the console.
So I would agree that in some cases video games cause violence.

NinjaSteel_Runner
12-12-2010, 02:23 AM
I would say video games cause violence because I had my own experience just earlier. I was playing Gran Turismo 5 and I was trying to do that stupid jeff gordon nascar thing and I had to go through this pylon course in 13.300 seconds and couldn't do it no matter how hard I tried. The closest I got was 13.313. Needless to say I got angry and started screaming profanities in my head and flipped off the console.
So I would agree that in some cases video games cause violence.


Sorry but video games causing angry hasn't been proven, plus there a lot of other things that could have made you mad after playing Gran Turismo 5.


I Have been playing a lot of violent games and nothing has happened to me, video games keep me relaxed.

jubeh
12-12-2010, 03:20 AM
You know that he was joking right.

NinjaSteel_Runner
12-12-2010, 07:36 AM
Yes I know, i was only making a point for others.

Ceta
12-12-2010, 08:20 AM
Sorry but video games causing angry hasn't been proven
I think someone needs to put down the videogame controller and pick up a book.


plus there a lot of other things that could have made you mad after playing Gran Turismo 5.
*See above comment*


I Have been playing a lot of violent games and nothing has happened to me, video games keep me relaxed.

lol....Just because it doesn't happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen to anyone else.

Fenn
12-13-2010, 06:37 PM
I would say video games cause violence because I had my own experience just earlier. I was playing Gran Turismo 5 and I was trying to do that stupid jeff gordon nascar thing and I had to go through this pylon course in 13.300 seconds and couldn't do it no matter how hard I tried. The closest I got was 13.313. Needless to say I got angry and started screaming profanities in my head and flipped off the console.
So I would agree that in some cases video games cause violence.


This is not a very strong example. You could replace video games with any thing. I'll show you:

I would say __________ cause violence because I had my own experience just earlier. I was trying ____________ and couldn't do it no matter how hard I tried. The closest I got was __________. Needless to say I got angry and started screaming profanities in my head and _____________.
So I would agree that in some cases __________ cause violence.

Hayashida
12-13-2010, 06:51 PM
Mmkay first, I was being sarcastic. Second, even if I wasn't, who's to say that using that format for examples is wrong? If it can be used to prove something, it should be able to be used as evidence.

jubeh
12-14-2010, 12:22 AM
Which book should I read ceta. The one with all this info.

zizi
12-14-2010, 05:30 AM
I don't think video games cause violence per se, but they certainly desensitise people to violence and otherwise imply that violence is somehow normal, okay, badass and not shocking and horrific. I'm not diametrically opposed to violence in games, but I do think the games industry needs to stick to realism and stay away from glorification.

Edit: Also I don't think that rape in a game should ever be shown as something other than the disgusting thing that it is. We already live in a rape culture people, lets not have games where rape is seen as a fun way to pass time.

Ceta
12-14-2010, 05:40 AM
Which book should I read ceta. The one with all this info.

lol....I was just talking about any book. With such poor knowledge of grammar, he should spend more time reading books and less time playing videogames.

Fenn
12-14-2010, 05:20 PM
Mmkay first, I was being sarcastic. Second, even if I wasn't, who's to say that using that format for examples is wrong? If it can be used to prove something, it should be able to be used as evidence.


First, oh, I thought you were serious...reading text its harder to determine.

Anyways, the point of my format is that you were more saying "Not being able to succees at X task after several attempts causes anger" rather than "video games cause anger." You could have been trying to cook a turkey, and kept failing, and had the same result. It didn't really prove that video games cause anger more than anything else with frustrating elements, see?



I don't think video games cause violence per se, but they certainly desensitise people to violence and otherwise imply that violence is somehow normal, okay, badass and not shocking and horrific. I'm not diametrically opposed to violence in games, but I do think the games industry needs to stick to realism and stay away from glorification.

Edit: Also I don't think that rape in a game should ever be shown as something other than the disgusting thing that it is. We already live in a rape culture people, lets not have games where rape is seen as a fun way to pass time.


Agreed. The problem is, not everone would agree with you. Fortunately for us, the majority of the gaming community still holds on to some sense of morals as far as sexual abuse in games, which means game devs are not including it because even if they did, it wouldn't sell well, it would get bad press, etc. As long as the majority of the gaming community opposes such content, that content will not make it into games.

Violence is a completely different story, for some reason. Many people who may be offended by intense sexual content have no problem gutting zombies, soldiers, and civilians. Personally, I have no problem with this so long as the games audience is mature enough to understand it's not real. (See: ESRB) I personally enjoy a healthy dose of violence (although I'm not a fan of gore) in my games; the intensity gets my blood rushing, and adds to the entertainment value. It gives me a sense of power and an outlet for the aggresive side of my human nature, WITHOUT HURTING ANYONE.

Look at war games. Wars, IRL, are some of the most disgusting, awful, downright shameful acts of human history. Yet they also come with elements of honor, bravery, and excitement that many people find attractive. With war video games, people can experience the positives of combat (adrenaline rush, drama, challenge) with others without commiting terrible actions against those people. I do wish there were less portrayals of real-life wars like WWII, because I do think gamers begin to see war as only how it occurs in video games.

Hayashida
12-14-2010, 05:22 PM
First, oh, I thought you were serious...reading text its harder to determine.
Anyways, the point of my format is that you were more saying "Not being able to succees at X task after several attempts causes anger" rather than "video games cause anger." You could have been trying to cook a turkey, and kept failing, and had the same result. It didn't really prove that video games cause anger more than anything else with frustrating elements, see?
K I see what ur saying

Fenn
12-14-2010, 07:43 PM
K I see what ur saying


^Civil conversation on the internet 8O

Hayashida
12-15-2010, 03:56 PM
I can be very civilized. Just give me a chance, coach.

Fenn
12-15-2010, 05:13 PM
I can be very civilized. Just give me a chance, coach.



I didn't mean it that way. Basically, MT is the only civilized (mostly) forum I've been on. I was pointing out that we were having civilized conversation because it doesn't happen too often online. :-)

So, yea, no limit on video games is my vote. Parents, monitor your kids.

Hayashida
12-15-2010, 08:01 PM
Oh.

Fenn
12-16-2010, 05:42 PM
Oh.


Priceless

Rio
12-16-2010, 06:45 PM
You should add that to the Chats and Quotes of MT. Do we have one here?

Fenn
12-17-2010, 04:58 PM
You should add that to the Chats and Quotes of MT. Do we have one here?


Yup. I'll add it. http://www.mangatutorials.com/index.php?do=/forum/chatter-box-22/chats-and-quotes-of-mt/

That could become a pretty funny meme for this site...just post that quote whenever someone posts something uninteresting.

LVUER
01-07-2011, 04:19 AM
I didn't mean it that way. Basically, MT is the only civilized (mostly) forum I've been on.

That just means that you haven't explored the internet enough...

Fenn
01-18-2011, 04:43 PM
That just means that you haven't explored the internet enough...

Are you the kid in those movies that always convinces the other kids to explore the obviously dangerous cave or abandoned house?

LVUER
01-18-2011, 07:09 PM
Nope, I'm the kid who told the other kid that the world is so big that we haven't seen even a glimpse of it.

Aether
01-18-2011, 10:12 PM
It's quite clear that video games are not real. If not due to it being on a tv, it's due to it not having amazing life-like graphics. If your kid is too stupid to be unable to distinguish virtual from reality, then don't let them play. It's as simple as that. You don't see me going around with a dreadnought wrecking shit. Mainly because I don't have one, but that's besides the point.

Fenn
01-23-2011, 11:33 AM
It's quite clear that video games are not real. If not due to it being on a tv, it's due to it not having amazing life-like graphics. If your kid is too stupid to be unable to distinguish virtual from reality, then don't let them play. It's as simple as that. You don't see me going around with a dreadnought wrecking shit. Mainly because I don't have one, but that's besides the point.

Thank you! And if we're going to limit video games, lets also ban violent commercials before 9:00 on sports channels, and explicit music on the radio. While we're at it, no more nude statues in museums.

GunZet
01-23-2011, 03:11 PM
I'm surprised people pick on games when movies like 'Hostel' and 'Saw' exist.
Wtf are these people on?

DWRUGS!

CypressDahlia
01-23-2011, 03:46 PM
This is why people should beat their kids.

Hayashida
01-23-2011, 07:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn5jlrxcpkI

Fenn
01-23-2011, 08:11 PM
This is why people should beat their kids.

*facepalm*

Or they could, y'know, just take the games away...

CypressDahlia
01-23-2011, 09:06 PM
Or they could, y'know, just beat their kids... BTW, that was a joke response. I honestly hate the games vs. bad parenting debate. Anything is a scapegoat for bad parenting these days. Just nobody wants to fucking own up and take responsibility for their misguided kids. Personal responsibility is like a thing of the past.

But, in all honesty, I don't understand the current fear of corporal punishment. I blame our current generation's lack of responsibility on excessive hand-holding and lenience.

Aether
01-23-2011, 09:50 PM
You guys know there's violence in a lot of books, right.

GunZet
01-23-2011, 11:49 PM
And manga...mostly seinen. Reading a page of Tenjou Tenge, there were guts everywhere at one point.

Delphinus
01-24-2011, 06:53 PM
But, in all honesty, I don't understand the current fear of corporal punishment.
Corporal punishment is a monstrous and perverse thing to do to a child, and psychologically it doesn't work as well as positive reinforcement. I agree that the loss of personal responsibility is total bullshit, though.

CypressDahlia
01-25-2011, 04:53 AM
"Positive reinforcement" is not a punishment. It barely qualifies as a means to counteract delinquency. But it does corroborate with my point that misbehavior in kids and teens stems from the fact that nobody realizes there are actual consequences to their actions anymore. We need to reinforce the concepts of cause and effect, especially when it comes to parenting. Kids need to know that they will get punished for their infractions, as that's how the REAL WORLD works. Positive reinforcement serves to do nothing but shelter kids from the very real idea that, if you piss the wrong people off, you will get your ass kicked. And, TBH, I'd rather it be me doing the ass kicking than some stranger on the street.

Of course, corporal punishment doesn't entail BRUTALIZING your kids (which would be "monstrous" and "perverse"). But giving them a spank or a slap on the wrist to let them know they're doing something wrong is just tough love. Then you have the parents who are too afraid to straighten their kids out and, when something bad happens, they're quick to point fingers at games, music or friends because they're under the impression that they did everything //right//. What with their positive reinforcement, and their time outs, and their sending their kids off to their room (where they probably just sleep it off or masturbate). How could they have gone wrong?!

Well, how about the part where you didn't teach your kid the value of CONSEQUENCES, lady? A consequence is supposed to actually be detrimental, not something you can just shrug off. I know so many people who find "suspensions" and "detentions" laughable. It's just a day off school for them. That's because they don't have parents at home who are willing to administer the type of punishment that schools are legally barred from. Ask a boy whose parents hit him if he thinks detention is laughable. I value punishing someone for their wrongs over praising them for their rights. The real world, likewise, doesn't always reward you for your good deeds and selflessness is all-too-rare among our "positively reinforced" generation. It's dangerous to ingrain the idea that you will always be rewarded in the minds of our children. That just leaves them under the impression that the whole world is a charity and plants the seeds for manipulative behavior, selfishness and an overinflated sense of entitlement. Surely enough, you can give Bobby a candy every time he says Please and Thank You. But how does that guarantee he //will// say Please and Thank You? If anything, he'll just say it whenever he wants a candy. But then again, why would candy matter, right? He could just stuff his entire hand into the candy jar with complete impunity because there's nobody there to impose w/ some form of ACTUAL punishment.

Long rant short: Positive Reinforcement is a stupid idea. We need to prevent kids from doing wrong, not try to bribe them to do right. It's a horrible form of sheltering that contradicts the reality of the parent-child relationship. As a loving mentor, the parent is responsible for CONDITIONING the child not to do wrong or self-harmful deeds, as well as usher them into the real world. PR is //not// how the real world works. Sheltering is dangerous. Kids should be exposed to reality; the parents' role is to put it in context.

Fenn
01-28-2011, 06:34 PM
^Very nice. But I disagree with the final statement.

Although I don't think physical punishment is really needed unless you are stopping them from hurting themselves (slap on the wrist so they don't put their hand on the oven, etc). What you need to do is take away priveleges. When adults do wrong they lose their rights and priveleges; so should children. The problem today is that parents are unwilling to spend the time actually enforcing the rules they set in place. This implies both positive and negative reinforcement. Bad acts and behavior = games, toys, dessert, etc. taken away. Good acts and behavior = a better chance of parents saying "yes" when a child asks for a toy, game, dessert, etc.

Positive reinforcement does exist in the real world. Hard work and good behavior CAN lead to promotions, rewards, recognition, even if it doesn't always. Kids need something to look forward to if they do the right thing, even if its just a thank you (you'd be surprised how much a kid can learn to value that). If it feels like the only reason to be good is to avoid punishments, they can grow up fearful.

A balance of reinforcement and punishment is best, IMHO.

M3S1H
01-30-2011, 08:29 AM
No, not really. Games stimulate what we aren't allowed to do in modern times. Games are a good stress-relief tool. Let's say you come home from work, and your boss was a total jerk today. You have many options, but if you actually end up shooting your boss rather than shooting an employer while playing GTA, you're in massive trouble. However, this isn't the only use for games. If your life is dull and you crave something more, try playing fantasy or adventure genres. If you're a "slow-goer", try games like RPG's that have a slow, turn-based system. Games also move art in different styles and animations. I hope to be a manga-ka, but I also hope to become the artist for at least one game. Basically, games capture what reality cannot bring us, in safe, convenient console systems.

Delphinus
02-01-2011, 05:38 PM
Long rant short: Positive Reinforcement is a stupid idea. We need to prevent kids from doing wrong, not try to bribe them to do right. It's a horrible form of sheltering that contradicts the reality of the parent-child relationship. As a loving mentor, the parent is responsible for CONDITIONING the child not to do wrong or self-harmful deeds, as well as usher them into the real world. PR is //not// how the real world works. Sheltering is dangerous. Kids should be exposed to reality; the parents' role is to put it in context.
Whether or not you think it is a stupid idea is irrelevant, Cyp. On average, positive reinforcement done correctly (rewarding achievements and exceptionally good behaviour with appropriate rewards; rewarding minor good behaviours with praise or approval; not rewarding or verbally punishing bad behaviours) is proven to be more effective in instilling values into kids than the use of punishment-focused child-rearing method. There are a number of studies (interesting article (http://www.specialconnections.ku.edu/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/specconn/main.php?cat=behavior&section=main&subsection=classroom/positive)) that corroborate this: it's not just me talking shit.
On positive reinforcement inspiring manipulative and deceptive behaviours: how is that a bad thing? Most high jobs are based around some sort of manipulation of others - teaching a child how to control others is likely to benefit their future career and allow them to avoid conflict.
Kids should also be sheltered to some extent: would you be comfortable allowing your child to watch a violent rape scene in a film, for example? That would probably traumatise the poor little bastard. Even existential truths can be mentally scarring and lead to depression: "The universe does not care whether you live or die, whether your family care about you, or whether you've just been beaten and left for dead." Sometimes people need to be shielded from the truth until they have the resources to deal with it.

CypressDahlia
02-01-2011, 07:54 PM
What I meant by "PR doesn't accurately reflect the real world" is that you're not going to get a pat on the back for every good thing you do. Sometimes you have to be selfless, and do good for the sake of doing good, acknowledging full well that there is no reward at the end of the rope. Hell, sometimes you have to do good knowing you're going to get PUNISHED in the end. That's the intrinsic value of a good deed: selflessness, and the desire to do something constructive or helpful without an ulterior motive. PR totally steps all over that idea. Also, taking away privileges is not a punishment in my book, considering they //are privileges// and they're not to be taken for granted to begin with. Boredom is not a punishment. Kids get bored all the time. I'm sure it doesn't inspire them to reevaluate themselves.

Also, Delphinus, there are a number of studies that show PR has adverse effects as well: http://www.betterparenting.com/child-positive-reinforcement/ Of course, this is because, when you try to raise your child like you raise a dog, you kind of undermine their intelligence. According to the studies cited in the article, PR stops working as soon as the child figures out that it's a reward system, after which they try to play to their own benefit (totally defeating the purpose of doing good). That's what happens when you try to bribe your kids.

Moderating what your child watches, but allowing them to get age-appropriate dosages of reality is not sheltering. Sheltering is keeping them from getting said reality kicks. But most of the parents who are complaining about violent video games probably never bothered to sit down with their kid and put these things in context for them. And it comes as such a huge shock to them when kids are using curse words and reenacting violent things. That's because the outside world is exposing these kids to the reality their parents hid from them, and were too cautious to explain to them. And then they blame games, movies, television, etc. for beating them to the punch. That's why //parents// have to beat //the media// to the punch, so they're exposed to the right ideas right off the bat. Hence, don't shelter your kids, otherwise they're going to learn it from someone or something else (potentially, in the wrong way).

Also, I'm going to end this debate now. The fact that you think instilling manipulative behavior in children is good parenting makes me think I'm debating w/ the wrong person.

Kiiryu
02-01-2011, 09:44 PM
Fiction doesn't need limits so long as the viewer is responsible enough to know the difference between a harmless fantasy and a reality with consequences. In other words, as long as our morals prevent things from crossing the line between the two.

Which for most sane people, should be all of the time.

Fenn
02-02-2011, 05:28 PM
Also, taking away privileges is not a punishment in my book, considering they //are privileges// and they're not to be taken for granted to begin with. Boredom is not a punishment. Kids get bored all the time. I'm sure it doesn't inspire them to reevaluate themselves.


It's not about boredom, it's about deserving and not deserving. Kids don't have jobs yet; you can't fine them for doing something wrong. And children often place great value in material objects like games. Are you trying to tell me that if a child does something wrong and you tell them that they can't have any of the cake you bought for tonight now, they will just shrug and move on? They might SCREAM AND THROW A TANTRUM. I'm pretty surprised you don't think that will make any impact. If a kid continues being cruel or troublesome, then its time to sit down and explain why being good is better than being bad. In most cases, a parent's success is proportionate to the amount of time they spend parenting.

I'm not saying starve them either; dessert is just an example. Not letting them play with a special toy, or game, or not letting them have a playdate is going to instill in them: "If I do things that hurt someone else in some way, I will not have as much fun." Which, in a similar fashion, is what happens in real life: "If I do things that hurt someone else in some way, I will go to jail/lose money/etc."

As for manipulative behavior, I would say that while I would not consider it a positive trait, most kids will attempt this anyway. As a parent, one must be aware of the ways a child could manipulate the system and set up rules in a way that avoids most methods. Be smart. If you realise a kid is saying thank you all the time just to get rewards, lessen the rewards over time. As they get older, a parent's expectations must raise, and more will be expected of the child to get rewarded. Eventually, when they are older, children will hopefully be mentally mature enough to see the deeper reasons for why they are being nice.

CypressDahlia
02-04-2011, 03:41 PM
It's not about boredom.

It is about boredom, though. You both highly overestimate and underestimate the constitution of kids on different levels. If you take away a child's toy or video game, I'm pretty sure they're not going to sit down and think about what they've done. You overestimate their ability to empathize and think rationally. If anything, they'll just feel like you've stolen something from them (possessive) and/or feel punished by the lack of entertainment said thing provided. Also, kids are capable of finding tons of things to do to pass their time, given how curious they are. You underestimate their ability to entertain themselves.

You are an adult, therefore you can comprehend the moralistic undertones of taking away privileges; such things as entitlement, whether or not the child deserves it, etc, etc. But, chances are, a child doesn't think more of it than, "oh shit, what am I going to do without my Xbox?"

But this is under the assumption that you're talking about young children. Also, doesn't that kind of conditioning nurture materialism? Equating a material good to a good deed sounds like a sure fire way to raise a materialistic and/or spoiled child.


Are you trying to tell me that if a child does something wrong and you tell them that they can't have any of the cake you bought for tonight now, they will just shrug and move on? They might SCREAM AND THROW A TANTRUM.

The fact that this is even a norm is a prime example of why parents need to be more heavy-handed.

Fenn
02-04-2011, 10:10 PM
It is about boredom, though. You both highly overestimate and underestimate the constitution of kids on different levels. If you take away a child's toy or video game, I'm pretty sure they're not going to sit down and think about what they've done. You overestimate their ability to empathize and think rationally. If anything, they'll just feel like you've stolen something from them (possessive) and/or feel punished by the lack of entertainment said thing provided. Also, kids are capable of finding tons of things to do to pass their time, given how curious they are. You underestimate their ability to entertain themselves.

You are an adult, therefore you can comprehend the moralistic undertones of taking away privileges; such things as entitlement, whether or not the child deserves it, etc, etc. But, chances are, a child doesn't think more of it than, "oh shit, what am I going to do without my Xbox?"

But this is under the assumption that you're talking about young children. Also, doesn't that kind of conditioning nurture materialism? Equating a material good to a good deed sounds like a sure fire way to raise a materialistic and/or spoiled child.

The fact that this is even a norm is a prime example of why parents need to be more heavy-handed.

Yes, I suppose we need to identify what age group we are talking about here.

Also, make note that I was not suggesting this as the only action available to parents. And, any form of punishment, for young children, will instill materialism because it is how children function. They don't understand, as you pointed out, the nuances of being selfless and giving without receiving. This must be taught gradually to them.

What form of punishment ARE you for anyway?

CypressDahlia
02-07-2011, 02:58 AM
I'm okay with light beatings. A spank, or a gentle slap on the wrist, possibly a tap on the head. As a child, I was beat pretty severely, but I //in no way// condone that level of corporal punishment against children. Basically, you only hit them to make a point, not to hurt them. I'm not for hurting children (that is not the objective of corporal punishment), but I do believe punishment should //always// leave an impression on a child, beit through a small dosage of pain. That is the objective of punishment, afterall: to make the lesson stick.

Blue_Dragon
02-07-2011, 04:48 AM
We got smacked on the bum a couple times, but what really taught us, was to not only have everything taken away, but to sit in time out. We weren't allowed to talk or do anything. Since it took away from us doing what we learned, my sis and I didn't usually give Mom much trouble until our teens. I think a combination of both is necessary. I also think, over all, boys are a little different to raise than girls, so perhaps this technique doesn't work will boys, and certainly not all kids.

I think we shouldn't be shy to give a couple "embarrassment" smacks (never on the face), but overall, there are ways to control your kids without using brute force. It takes patience, and that's the last thing people want to hear: it's all instant gratification. I think people also spoil their kids because 1) they feel guilty because they don't spend enough time with them, 2) it's easier to give them what they want and let them play what they want, and just bitch at video game companies for not "rating" and telling them what their kids can play and can't, and 3) fear of DCFS coming out for even the slightest physical discipline. Basically, there's no common sense among anyone, and they either punish too little, or punish too much. And creative persons/companies creating a story and game get caught in the middle of it.

That's how I feel...sorry that was such a long ramble.

Fenn
02-07-2011, 09:45 AM
I'm okay with light beatings. A spank, or a gentle slap on the wrist, possibly a tap on the head. As a child, I was beat pretty severely, but I //in no way// condone that level of corporal punishment against children. Basically, you only hit them to make a point, not to hurt them. I'm not for hurting children (that is not the objective of corporal punishment), but I do believe punishment should //always// leave an impression on a child, beit through a small dosage of pain. That is the objective of punishment, afterall: to make the lesson stick.

I fail to see how this is any different from denial of priveleges. It's like a different form: instead of "good act, good things" it reinforces "bad act, bad things."


We got smacked on the bum a couple times, but what really taught us, was to not only have everything taken away, but to sit in time out. We weren't allowed to talk or do anything. Since it took away from us doing what we learned, my sis and I didn't usually give Mom much trouble until our teens. I think a combination of both is necessary. I also think, over all, boys are a little different to raise than girls, so perhaps this technique doesn't work will boys, and certainly not all kids.

I think we shouldn't be shy to give a couple "embarrassment" smacks (never on the face), but overall, there are ways to control your kids without using brute force. It takes patience, and that's the last thing people want to hear: it's all instant gratification. I think people also spoil their kids because 1) they feel guilty because they don't spend enough time with them, 2) it's easier to give them what they want and let them play what they want, and just bitch at video game companies for not "rating" and telling them what their kids can play and can't, and 3) fear of DCFS coming out for even the slightest physical discipline. Basically, there's no common sense among anyone, and they either punish too little, or punish too much. And creative persons/companies creating a story and game get caught in the middle of it.

That's how I feel...sorry that was such a long ramble.

I agree with you mostly. Time out is a very useful method, worked on me all the time. But the problem is it requires parents to actually, god forbid, WATCH their children! This unheard of concept will never work in today's world!

I still think that anything beyond a grabbing of the wrist (to physically prevent the child from hurting themself or doing something bad) is unneeded.

CypressDahlia
02-07-2011, 09:37 PM
Fenn, I just covered the differences in the last three posts...

1.) Boredom is not a punishment.
2.) Privileges are not to be taken for granted anyway.
3.) Equating material goods to good deeds is a horrible model, and nurtures materialism. So we take the cake away from the kid and the kid throws a tantrum. Instead of trying to fix the kid's materialistic and needy behavior, we instead nurture it by using such things as cake for leverage. That's horrible parenting. Beyond that, it teaches the child to take such things as desert for granted because it places importance on the item, as if it were important enough to warrant a tantrum. That should not be a norm.
4.) A surefire reward system is not true to real life.
5.) Taking away privileges is highly, //highly// shrug-offable. Especially since our standards for "necessity" and "privilege" are rising constantly. Maybe this would've worked in days when things like cable TV, high speed internet and a personal computer weren't considered a necessity.
6.) Reward systems are highly exploitable, and are often easily exploited.
7.) It doesn't make a point well.
8.) Has no way of guaranteeing that kids //don't// do bad, which is what PUNISHMENTS are for.
9.) Leaves false interpretations of good will.

At what point did you forget all of this?

wolfman
02-08-2011, 11:02 AM
when i was a kid i was quite happy to sit in time out and if they took away toys/games id just read :/ i think i was smacked like twice and it was just a slap round the leg, not hard but enough to know id done something wrong and it worked i didnt do what id got in trouble for

Fenn
02-08-2011, 06:09 PM
Fenn, I just covered the differences in the last three posts...

1.) Boredom is not a punishment.
2.) Privileges are not to be taken for granted anyway.
3.) Equating material goods to good deeds is a horrible model, and nurtures materialism. So we take the cake away from the kid and the kid throws a tantrum. Instead of trying to fix the kid's materialistic and needy behavior, we instead nurture it by using such things as cake for leverage. That's horrible parenting. Beyond that, it teaches the child to take such things as desert for granted because it places importance on the item, as if it were important enough to warrant a tantrum. That should not be a norm.
4.) A surefire reward system is not true to real life.
5.) Taking away privileges is highly, //highly// shrug-offable. Especially since our standards for "necessity" and "privilege" are rising constantly. Maybe this would've worked in days when things like cable TV, high speed internet and a personal computer weren't considered a necessity.
6.) Reward systems are highly exploitable, and are often easily exploited.
7.) It doesn't make a point well.
8.) Has no way of guaranteeing that kids //don't// do bad, which is what PUNISHMENTS are for.
9.) Leaves false interpretations of good will.

At what point did you forget all of this?

When I started writing, like I usually do :D This new format does make it easier to respond to though, thank you.

1.) Granted
2.) Granted
3.) Equating physical pain to bad deeds is a horrible model, and nurtures "might makes right." The child will start to learn that if someone can hurt you, you must listen to them.
4.) A surefire punishment system is not true to real life.
5.) Cable TV, high speed internet and a personal computer aren't a necessity. Still, you make a point.
6.) Physical pain can be exploited by the parent. They can easily begin using pain to shut up the child
7.) Restating your main point
8.) Punishments don't guarantee anything. Sometimes they make the kid smarter at not getting caught by upping the ante.
9.) Slightly confused?



when i was a kid i was quite happy to sit in time out and if they took away toys/games id just read :/ i think i was smacked like twice and it was just a slap round the leg, not hard but enough to know id done something wrong and it worked i didnt do what id got in trouble for

That's not a time out. Time out is in the corner, still, silent, doing nothing.

wolfman
02-08-2011, 06:59 PM
no i meant they tried time out and they also tried just taking games and toys away

CypressDahlia
02-08-2011, 07:57 PM
3.) Equating physical pain to bad deeds is a horrible model, and nurtures "might makes right." The child will start to learn that if someone can hurt you, you must listen to them.

Only if you aren't putting the beating in context properly. As I said, corporal punishment isn't about the pain, it's about consequence. If you let them know why the beating occurred, what they did wrong and how they can do better, it's not going to be the case. The only reason you hit them is to make sure the consequence is //enough// to make the initial lesson stick.

4.) A surefire punishment system is not true to real life.

But it should be. People should get punished for bad things, right? The reason we still have criminals is because this doesn't happen often enough. I'd rather teach my child "the way it should be" as opposed to "the way it isn't."

6.) Physical pain can be exploited by the parent. They can easily begin using pain to shut up the child

You're right, but child abuse is expressly against the law. There is a punishment for that, too. Whereas being spoiled has no legal punishments, sadly. So there are already stops put in place by the government in case this happens.

8.) Punishments don't guarantee anything. Sometimes they make the kid smarter at not getting caught by upping the ante.

Well, nothing in this world is guaranteed, Fenn. But a child who gets a slap on the wrist is probably more reluctant about doing bad than a child who gets a time out.

9.) What I meant about this one is that "good deeds should be about doing good". PR puts emphasis on the reward as opposed to the deed.

Fenn
02-13-2011, 12:26 PM
3.) Equating physical pain to bad deeds is a horrible model, and nurtures "might makes right." The child will start to learn that if someone can hurt you, you must listen to them.

Only if you aren't putting the beating in context properly. As I said, corporal punishment isn't about the pain, it's about consequence. If you let them know why the beating occurred, what they did wrong and how they can do better, it's not going to be the case. The only reason you hit them is to make sure the consequence is //enough// to make the initial lesson stick.

4.) A surefire punishment system is not true to real life.

But it should be. People should get punished for bad things, right? The reason we still have criminals is because this doesn't happen often enough. I'd rather teach my child "the way it should be" as opposed to "the way it isn't."

6.) Physical pain can be exploited by the parent. They can easily begin using pain to shut up the child

You're right, but child abuse is expressly against the law. There is a punishment for that, too. Whereas being spoiled has no legal punishments, sadly. So there are already stops put in place by the government in case this happens.

8.) Punishments don't guarantee anything. Sometimes they make the kid smarter at not getting caught by upping the ante.

Well, nothing in this world is guaranteed, Fenn. But a child who gets a slap on the wrist is probably more reluctant about doing bad than a child who gets a time out.

9.) What I meant about this one is that "good deeds should be about doing good". PR puts emphasis on the reward as opposed to the deed.

3. You can put positive reinforcement in context too. I'm not saying parents should be a vending machine: good deed in, reward out. They need to supplement this with communication and life lessons. If put into context, positive reinforcement works without promoting blatant materialism.

4. So people shouldn't be rewarded for doing good? Don't forget what I mentioned before; positive reinforcement is not limited to materials. Sometimes all the child will receive is a thank you. In a perfect world, every good deed would be rewarded, even if it's just a smile.

6. Granted

8. Debatable. Actually this is basically what we are discussing anyway so I'll continue.

9. Very clear statement of your idea! This makes your position on the matter much clearer. That being said, I fail to see how a slap on the wrist puts the focus on the deed. I'd say it puts the focus on fear and the punishment.


Honestly, I don't think either method works on its own. I think that most important is the communication and education you provide the child with after they do bad or good deeds. Explanations, as you pointed out, of why the deed was good or bad and why we do/don't do that are far more useful than pain or rewards.

I do bellieve, however, we have digressed from the topic, which was simply whether games need content limitations. Not that this wasn't a lively debate, of course.

Sylux
02-15-2011, 01:41 PM
no i meant they tried time out and they also tried just taking games and toys away

And look at you now, lee, you're a mtoherfucking gangster who's going to university and who builds giant fucking drowning mechanisms. idk if you're fucked up or awesome O_o

jubeh
02-16-2011, 01:02 AM
I just read this new article in kill screen and it's p good and relevant.

http://www.killscreenmagazine.com/articles/violence-remembered-and-forgotten

Fenn
02-16-2011, 05:47 PM
I just read this new article in kill screen and it's p good and relevant.

http://www.killscreenmagazine.com/articles/violence-remembered-and-forgotten

Amazing article. I don't agree with everything but it was artfully written and made a clear point.

In response to the writer's question, the reason videogames put no consequence on violence is because no one would buy a game that did. Today, if given the choice between a game with minimal violence and realistic consequences and one with maximum violence and no consequence, most gamers would choose the latter. In fact they already have. Look at the top selling games and the pattern is there.

What I draw after reflecting on the role of violence in games is two possibilities: (1) Most gamers are very violent, sadistic people and taking away one medium of that expression does not change the fact that these peope are cruel beings, or (2) Most gamers realize the difference between virtual and real violence and use games as an outlet for aggression. Games allow people to take normally horrific actions (war, gang violence), filter out the pain and tragedy, and enjoy the competition and adrenaline.

No form of media should ever be expected or forced to provide educational value. Unless someone is intending to create educational tools through a specific medium, the only limits creators should feel when adding content to a game is that posed by their target audience. Also, as this article pointed out, all media should be treated equally. If violent games should be restricted and demoted, so should horror movies and rap albums, as well as nude paintings/sculptures in "Fine Arts" museums and suggestive romance novels in bookstores.