Top
50°

A Response To The Daily Mail's Comments On 'Sinister Video Game Secrets'

Clipping Error responds to the recent Daily Mail article which commented on how thousands of children are getting violent video games for Christmas. He offers the opinion that parents should not buy games for their children that are beyond their age, and if they do they shouldn't be angry about the games for it.

Read Full Story >>
clippingerror.com
The story is too old to be commented.
SaveFerris1086d ago

If a retailer sells a game rated 18 to someone below that age the retailer can be prosecuted, but why haven't parents been prosecuted for allowing children to play the game?

PeaSFor1084d ago (Edited 1084d ago )

easier to blame videogames than admiting bad parenting is the main problem, go get a porn movie for your 5years old kid then blame the porn industry for being not suited for kids....

WeAreLegion1084d ago

The retailer actually can't get prosecuted in the United States. It is not illegal to sell Mature games to minors in the US. It is just frowned upon.

SaveFerris1084d ago

I didn't know that. So in the United States, is the Rating system just a guideline with no real penalties?

WeAreLegion1084d ago

Yep. The ESRB is not recognized by any governing body in the United States. You will be fired by most managers if you are caught selling an M rated game to a minor at GameStop, however. Haha.

GameSpawn1084d ago (Edited 1084d ago )

Like Legion said the worst case scenario is that the employee who sold the game to the "child" would be fired or reprimanded.

However, kids under 17 (the minimum for M in the US is 17 - possibly because ESRB spawned out of old movie rating systems were there was NC-17) RARELY are directly sold games by retailers. The case is that parents (obviously old enough to the retail clerk) KNOWINGLY buy these games for their kids. What is appalling is the ones who are SHOCKED by the blood, gore, and violence AFTER the fact when the ESRB rating system has become a norm. The damn rating takes up a chunk of the front and back of the box - there is ZERO excuse for missing it. The parents are 100% to blame.

Rating systems should just be general guidelines, as there are some kids that are mature enough beyond their age to handle "M" rated games just fine, but this is where GOOD parenting comes in and knowing when a certain child is ready for these games if ever. Some kids have real mental issues and should never be allowed to play ANY games because they are too easily addicted; others have mental issues that make it hard for them to separate fantasy and reality, but again in the end the FINAL decision will always come down to the parent/caretaker and 100% of the responsibility rests on them.

LucasRuinedChildhood1084d ago (Edited 1084d ago )

If a parent believes their child can look at a movie, read a book, or play a game, etc, then that is it. People are becoming so obsessed with the defense of video-games against idiots like the Daily Mail, that they are not thinking about the validity of what they are saying. What you are saying reminds of those who say Hatred shouldn't be released, because it will ultimately push the acceptance of games backwards.

We played violent video-games when we were kids, and no, we didn't have bad parents. In my opinion, it's time to stop being hypocrites on this issue. The Daily Mail is just a dumb tabloid. C'mon. The rating system should ultimately just be a guideline, that only retailers should realistically follow. If you buy a game for your kid, the government should not be able to judge you for such. Don't encourage the Nanny State.

This article towed the right line, in my opinion.

WeAreLegion1084d ago

Taking The Daily Mail seriously is a mistake. It's just a shame people don't know how ridiculous they are. They're basically a tabloid.

Exaggerated stories like the one this article is responding to come around every once in awhile. They grow on social media because they support a popular, albeit misguided, opinion.

mixelon1084d ago

Absolutely a tabloid, and one of the worst as somehow (some) people take them seriously. Doesn't happen with the others so much. I have no idea how people end up trusting anything they say, they fabricate and bend the truth, stirring shit and drawing on fear. They're a much more insidious and damaging influence on society than games are.

spartanlemur1084d ago

Definitely more damaging than games (which are not damaging).

Nowhere near as damaging as the social justice police infecting the internet at the moment.

Mikeyy1084d ago

Nothing can ever make sense. Parents should be held accountable for their hoodlum children running the streets at night and vandalizing and killing people. Yet they are not punished in the slightest.

Then the have the audacity to go on TV and tell us How kind and gentle their kid was.

SaveFerris1084d ago

Is this happening in your neighbourhood because that scares me like something out of A Clockwork Orange or Purge.

CorndogBurglar1084d ago

The bottom line is that the new generation of people in general are a bunch of sissies.

Dont believe me? Look back to the 80's. A little movie called Gremlins. Maybe you've heard of it? It was very popular kids movie. In that movie the main characters slaughtered gremlins wholesale, in all manner of ways. One was stuffed into a microwave and exploded. Another was stuffed into a blender and gut went flying everywhere. My point? Its a very violent yet beloved kids movie. Did that turn a whole generation of kids into raving, murderous lunatics? No.

People need to calm their tits these days.

LucasRuinedChildhood1084d ago

I wouldn't say its the new generation of people. It's a very loud politically correct minority with the potential to find anything offensive, that are mostly despised by the majority. It is very alarming though. People in the comments are calling for the punishment of parents, rather than just condemning this idiot tabloid publication, even though we've all played violent video-games when we were younger. It's hypocritical politically correct nonsense.

CorndogBurglar1084d ago

There are points to be made.

Even though I played any violent video game I wanted when i was little, if my parents knew that I was playing something like GTA (which didn't exist yet when I was a kid), then they probably wouldn't be okay with me buying hookers and some of the other content in that game. I'll give people that. But again, if parents don't want their kids seeing these things, then they should be more active in their kids' interests. Its that simple.

As for violence, I actually think that is the lesser of all evils when it comes to content in some games. Like I said above, movies and things were WAY more violent back in the day and it didn't turn people into lunatics.

Now, when it comes to sexual situations and things of that nature, I can totally understand parents not wanting their kids to be subjected to it at an early age. Especially being the father of a 5 year old. I get it.

But when it comes to violence, people need to relax.

mixelon1084d ago

Gremlins had to be massively rewritten to get the version we saw that was kid friendly. The original script had a human beheading, and wasn't remotely kid appropriate. It was Spielberg's involvement that got it cleaned up. Most of the violence towards humans in Gremlins was slapstick or off screen.

Nobody minds people killing evil little green men in comedic fashion even today, if they'd been allowed to kick a human head down some stairs (LOL) thatd likely be a different issue.

Its more about parents keeping track of their kids than it is the kids themselves imo.

spartanlemur1084d ago (Edited 1084d ago )

So now the Daily Mail is accepting worthless left-wing pieces which include criticism of perfectly enjoyable "damsel in distress tropes" (it's in the original article).

What a waste of paper. Sitting on the fence is only going to find it impaled.

Show all comments (18)