The debate "Should games be age controlled" was started by
January 26, 2017, 3:50 pm.
21 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 11 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
neveralone posted 3 arguments, Thepanther posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
blue_rayy posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
thereal, nellie11iah, SharpHost, smv2005, redstar, Thepanther, mb2798, Pnbshady, ProfDoke, ChloeLMc, EthanTReilly, MrLuke and 9 visitors agree.
blue_rayy, Jericho, diana26, FaithofExaltism, Lennon13 and 6 visitors disagree.
interesting. personal experience has shown dif. I will try to see what evidence I can provide but if I get angry I usually put on some mortal kombat and vent. I actually hear that a lot of people do the same.( maybe not mortal kombat but such games)
some links to aggression have been found. not criminal violence, just general aggression.
true. I know many who've been "exposed" to violence but as always says it's a game. it plays different rules than life. so essentially they already know that they shouldn't do what the games show. that it's just entertainment.
I think parents should have the control, not government enforcement.
considering I think that "exposure" theory is nonsense and doesn't lead to violence or anything, there is no need. the only issue I raised is gore/explicit death and very young children, but parents can usually easily monitor at that age, and if they expose themselves through peer pressure, it will likely be a 1 time learning experience they won't eagerly repeat, but won't likely cause trauma unless they are forced to watch it repeatedly. most likely they'll just build a little character.
yes. I thought I deleted it before you responded lol. felt I was knitpicking.
nemiroff did u delete ur remark?
all I came up with is hunger games.
let me rephrase. letting the gov. control has been the only major push besides parents that I know of. there could be more. idk if any country did the gov. scenario but will look it up.
I can't remember when but there was parents suing game companies for selling games with ratings above their age and the comp. retaliated and said they should pay attention. the parents believed that the gov. should enforce the age restrictions. long story short the court said it's the parents job to pay attention to what the kid plays not the gov.
what do you mean the government chooses?
i prefer to play GTA V without my parents monitoring me.
which right now as a parent in the US u can control. unlike in the other major scenario where the gov. chooses
I don't much believe in the "exposure to violence, etc is a serious issue, but there are certain things young minds are not ready for. such as realistic gore for young children.
only to an extent, obvious offenses such as under 10 playing GTA v should be banned
there isn't one right now. just store policies like GameStop has
the age restriction is only for the child. if a parent wants to give their 10 year old grand theft auto they can. the restriction is to prevent them from buying it without parental consent.
I don't think it should. that is the parents job.
by this I mean if it says it's rated ten and up then that is who can get it.