Amazon.com Widgets
  • They'll have to grow up eventually.

    They can't live under cute bunnies, floors of candy and clouds of happiness all the time. By playing video games, they can simulate what's the real world like without getting hurt or anything.

    Sure, it says 'M', but what is your perspective from that? Does that mean the game is banned for youngsters or not recommended for youngsters? It's just a rating. It's now law.

  • Depends on the kids Impressionability and Maturity.

    Bloody and violet games are only bad for impressionable and/or immature kids and only an extreme minority actually commit crimes, lets see, kid with physchological problems and known for his impressionability kills his father because he won't give him his playstation? KILL VIDEO GAMES CAUSE THAT WILL CERTAINLY SOLVE EVERYTHING, No, NO, it's the parents responsibility to notice the signs and get a physhologist before anything like that remotely happens, what the NO people are doing is pretty much blaming a car manufactuer when someone is driving 100 MPH without a seatbelt, on the highway,

  • Yes and no.

    Depending on how impressionable and if they will copy what they see. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  • Age =/= Maturity

    I believe that youngsters should be given the opportunity to play 'bloody' video games. Being young does not necessarily mean that they are too immature for such content. Youngsters grow up eventually and will, at some point, have access to bloody video games. Be that actually playing the games themselves or simply watching video footage of the games.

    Speaking from personal experience, I started playing such video games from a very young age and I grew up to be a completely sensible and mature adult. I certainly do not possess the urge to commit any violent acts nor am I scarred by what I have seen on the screen. Why? Because bloody video games are works of FICTION. They are not real.

  • Yes, because nothing has happened. Nothing will happen. Stop hypothesizing and look at the facts.

    While people that say bloody games shouldn't be played by youngsters hide in a corner with their censorship hats on, the rest of the people that actually have a reasonable state of mind will continue to dig their arguments into the ground. "Bloody games" don't cause violence, and it shows. The theory cannot be backed by actual things that have happened in real life. It is just a theory that hasn't led to anything. Simply saying that it will lead to something doesn't do anything. It is a ridiculous claim that keeps being repeated, so Yes. Youngsters can play violent video games, and continue to, and nothing has happened. Nothing will.

  • Yes, because nothing has happened. Nothing will happen. Stop hypothesizing and look at the facts.

    While people that say bloody games shouldn't be played by youngsters hide in a corner with their censorship hats on, the rest of the people that actually have a reasonable state of mind will continue to dig their arguments into the ground. "Bloody games" don't cause violence, and it shows. The theory cannot be backed by actual things that have happened in real life. It is just a theory that hasn't led to anything. Simply saying that it will lead to something doesn't do anything. It is a ridiculous claim that keeps being repeated, so Yes. Youngsters can play violent video games, and continue to, and nothing has happened. Nothing will.

  • Video Games Are Not Necessarily Bad

    Violence in video games isn't going to make someone into a serial killer. If it did, then all M-rated or violent games like Call Of Duty and Grand Theft Auto would have been banned by now. You're telling me every single (or most) person that plays such games will be converted into a sadistic psychopath that lusts for murder? Get out of here if you think that is the case.

    Funny how people keep saying video games are violent when they never say it for TV shows and movies. Don't tell me that those are less violent because I can tell you that almost all R rated (or close to R) movies and TV shows are so violent to the point that it cannot even be seen by kids. Don't tell me that they let you interact as movies like Rambo are so violent, extreme militants in Africa actually use them as a brainwashing tool to "hypnotize" children into becoming child soldiers and fight for them, yet video games cannot do that.

    Why is it that people always blame video games as a motive for shootings? Why not movies like Rambo and James Bond huh? Or why not just blame it on both the gun manufacturer and the government for allowing the right to bear arms? Take a look at countries where guns are illegal to own; their crime-rates related to guns are extremely low compared to those that allows guns.

    I don't know about you, but there is thing called online gaming. Players can play, chat, text, and send each other gifts like you would in real life or through social networks like Facebook and Twitter. If that's not developing social skills, I don't know what is. Also, what if the child lives in an isolated community or is bullied/hated by other kids? Think about that and then come talk to me.

    I agree that simply pressing buttons don't do jack squat. It certainly does improve hand-eye coordination as well as reaction time, but that mainly depends on the game you are playing. Let's be honest, playing Mario or Pokemon isn't going to help. But playing Sonic or Call of Duty is going to.

    And comparing this to reality cannot compared that way. Sure, you can compare them, but to a certain extent. Video games aren't meant to be that realistic, they are meant to be fun; if you want it to extremely realistic to the point where it will actually help you, then you should search Google for virtual simulators. Now those actually help you in real life situations as they are meant to be realistic. So realistic that they become boring and not fun at all...

  • Children learn the most at an early age.

    If you're going to bring up your child with the electronic babysitter, putting them into a world where murder is a "fun" and "viable" option might not make them serial killers, but it will most certainly grow that sense of narcissism that is already prevalent in most of the youth in the western world.

    That sense of "I" over "we" is what is destroying America. Gaming at an early age, especially with violence, takes away from the child's act of learning that "teambuilding" aspect in life, mainly because first-person shooters and the like are oriented toward the user alone. Just try to coordinate a battle with teammates in X-box life or some other gaming device: It's next to impossible.

    How selfish people become when they're addicted to video games is surprising to me. Not only that, but it reduces the speed at which they learn social skills, as pressing a button does nothing for them. Sure, you can argue that "it improves reaction times," but let's see them drive a car with those "reaction times." It just doesn't work out in reality.

    Videogames should be reserved for older individuals with a solid grasp on reality. Not people that have barely learned to put words together in a full sentence. Spend five minutes on X-Box Live and you'll see exactly what I mean. It is a travesty to see all of these young children, unattended by their parents, cussing out older individuals throwing fits while playing a simple game.

    It's honestly ridiculous that anyone argues for young children to "game." Sure, they have to grow up, but they don't have to grow up with the social skills of Jeffery Dahmer.

  • Now red is every where

    Red means the "blood"...If you play a game in which there is a huge killing by a gunman then the effect will be on thinking in the real life.....Means to say actions are only made when there is a motive behind them and games can be a greater source of motivation for the youngsters.... They would like to be with a rifle or some clashencop with them....My words may be cynical but it can happen too...As it is modernity everywhere..

  • Nah Bruh ...

    It depends on what you'd classify as a 'youngster' children from twelve and under shouldn't play graphic games like GTA or TLOA with lots of violence and adult themes, the key word being 'adult'. It's true that children will learn about these things eventually, but children should learn when they're at an age where they can understand the consequences of violence, but i also believe that it is the parents responsibility to supervise what their kids are playing. I mean game ratings are there for a reason.

  • No they shouldn't

    I am making this argument on the basis of "what should be" as opposed to "what is". Should you expose violence to someone who is considered a youngster? Perhaps, but blowing the violence out of proportion -the way most video games do- is not the way to do so. Video games seem to make light from hardcore violence, making it almost acceptable to society. Too be honest, if a game was too bloody I felt turned off by it. Take Gears of War, a game that essential prides itself with an array of exaggerated scenes of gore and blood. Sure, its not a bad game, but when a game prides itself on gore I felt that if the standard for gore became what GOW became, games would be less enjoyable. A game can still be fun without excessive amounts of blood, and because of that, I think youngsters should stay away from them.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.