Staredit Network

Should violence in games become limited or kept? I think violence should be kept since that makes the game more fun and hardcore. But also limited in a way since blood and gore can result in someone becoming violent in the future.

Who cares about violence? It's not like we never hear about it in daily life. It's basically saying that sex in movies is fine but sex in games is hell waiting to happen. And violence makes up 60% of the gaming industry. If there was no violent games, we'd be playing "Pretty Pony Visits Marshmallow Castle"

No one becomes violent because they played Halo. Thats just what the lawyers tell them to say after they shoot some people.

Well I am mainly talking about Mortal Kombat and Grand Theft Auto...They can get kids to become violent. My neighbor got arrested since he played alot of violent games. And he is only 13.

I wouldn't say no to violence, but tone it down for the younger kids and keep the gore and stuff for the older ones.

Maybe the Ratings for the games should be more strict like how teen games can be bought for little kids when it has like alchohol and drugs...and Minor Gore...

Oh come off it. They blamed Culubime (Howerever it's spelled) on Doom.
I say it's the parents call, if you're stupid enough to buy your six year old GTA:SA, it's your fault.

NO
They can't. Video games started late 80s and early 90s. The popularity of video games was very low, and crime was very high. Currently crime rate, drug abuse, underage of anything, robberies, vadalism, HAS ALL GONE DOWN. Video game popularity has gone UP. There isn't a connection, seeing on a screen a black blob shoot another black blob won't make you start killing people. And the amount of blood that comes out of enemy after killing him doesn't make a difference either. People should stop going after GTA, if anything I learn more gun slinging killing moves in Metal Gear Solid then any other game.

And you can't get arrested for playing video games.


No they shouldn't. That's bullshiz, the way things are now are fine. Just because all the parents in the world suck at controlling their kids doesn't mean I should get punished. I play mature games, I play a lot of mature games. I have all GTAs and have played more violent games like Manhunt and God of War. I can say honestly I haven't killed anyone or stolen something, or commited any crime. In fact I have 30 hours of community service. Anyone who thinks video games make people violent is an idiot and should be shot. The idea that clerks at a store can be fined $1000 dollars for selling a rated T game to a 12 year old is ridiculos. Parents are being idiots and they can't admit that so they find the most popular thing at the time and blame that. 60-70s it was comics, 80-90s it was music and now they're blamming video games.

It is bullshiz to you since yoru the one that wants the violent games, as it says on your avatar.

Its bullshiz to me also. All the government wants to do is blame something for something they can't cause a change for.

I think it's a responsibility that the parents should uphold. If they think their child is smart enough to difer reality from video games then violent games are fine. But the younger kids I have seen have a hard time telling the difference so they might just take a knife to their best friend.

That is the dumbest response ever. I'm highly agasint ignorant people like yourself who beleive video games are violent because some jack ass who's friends with House represenatives says so. Notice I provided FACTS?! I don't "want" more violence, I don't care how much violence there is in a game. But saying that because the main character in a video game kills someone doesn't mean your going to kill someone. Jack Thompson says that people have had higher rates of agression after playing GTA. He never said speically what the tests were, it could've been completely rigged. Also there isn't any tests saying people got smarter for playing games like Civilization. Even if your kids do somehow learn that violence is the answer, then they'd OBVIOUSLY be WAY too young to be playing those games in the first place. Notice the WARNING LABEL, it's not part of the boxart people it's there for a reason. Just because stupid parents let their 8 year olds or 10 year olds get their hands on Grand Theft Auto DOES NOT MAKE IT GAMING COMPANIES FAULT. Or other gamers fault, because some kid kills someone and just HAPPENS to have a copy of a violent video game, does not mean it's for the same reason. Jack Thompson is a farking attention whore, that's why he doesn't go after games like Bloodrayne or Metal Gear Solid. GTA is already making a lot of trouble with people, so he jumped on the band wagon. That's why he stopped his pushing with Sim 2 supposing to be rated mature, he was fighting a losing fight because everyone thought Sims was apeacful game. More people don't want GTA in the market anymore, that's why he's going after GTA instead of games that acutally deserve to get at least one lawsuit. I seriously want everyone to think about video games casuing violent people. You saying that bad fixtured graphcis with unrealistic conditions and health system, no speicaication of how to shoot a gun automatically makes me into killing people?
I don't know how to shoot a gun, the only thing I learned from video games about guns is that when you hold it two handed you have to watch out where you put your second hand, and that's from MGS3. What did I learn from GTA? Only useful things, I know that bigger cars can flip over easily, and that flimsy cars can go faster but damage easily. What else did I learn, I learned that I CAN'T SURVIE A 3 STORY DROP. Or at least jump down 3 stories and run a mile. I'm telling you now that Violence in video games and crime rate are unrelated, and until you bring any sort of evidence that it is there's no point arguing. So far you basically said "well they are violent because I said so".

Jay got officially served. True what GM said. Why is it always the company's fault and never the consumer?

Dude, I am saying that violence can stay but should be restricted to little kids...The ESRB should really have their Teen ratings also reinforced like the Mature rating.

And plus...I am talking about games that have violent gameplay. Not games with a movie about killing and the rest is just a little cutesy adventure.

Close this topic please...I don't want anyone flaming at me.

Your confused Jay...

ESRB ratings is Terms of Service material. If the parents don't see that it says an M for Mature and they buy it for a 6 yr old, thats their fault. Not the companies, it's the parents, and if you look deeper into this, you'll see that parent's spoil their kids.

"It's really hard to argue over the internet because the person your arguing with is an idiot!" - Me.

Well...The store clerk would ask if you are buying the game for a child under 17...And the store clerk is mainly responsibly for sellign the game in the first place.

And plus...I asked if you agree or disagree if violence in games should be limited...NOT to yell at whatever I say. I mean I like vioelnce in the games since it gives the game more touch, but it can affect children and how they would be when they grow up.

I don't think violent games contribute a lot to crimes. I play a lot of violent games I don't have an urge to kill anyone. In fact, I'm not even addicted to them. But there are some people who are different and violent games will affect them a bit but it should not be a valid reason to blame it all on viode games.

I think I got enough debate for today...