As the original gaming audiece gets older, what do you think the logical progression of the Gaming Industry should be, and should we be concerned about the kind of games our kids will one day face?
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into theravenofcu who doth quote:
Okay, with the exception of Nintendo, who still has a large family friendly emphasis, most gaming coorporations have moved along with the ages of when the orignal gamers were ages 5-8.
No they haven't.
It's true that there are more adult games produced today, but more games for a younger crowd are also being produced. More games are being made period.
Today's younger generation plays as many video games as the original NES players. Logically, it would make no sense at all to cater only to the older gamers.
quote:
theravenofcu came out of the closet to say:
Okay, with the exception of Nintendo, who still has a large family friendly emphasis, most gaming coorporations have moved along with the ages of when the orignal gamers were ages 5-8. Most of them now appeal to those original gamers interests, and have an increased levels of substance that either is inapropriat for our younger gaming brothers and sisters to view, or beyond their ability to understand.As the original gaming audiece gets older, what do you think the logical progression of the Gaming Industry should be, and should we be concerned about the kind of games our kids will one day face?
I think you're already seeing the logical progression of the industry. Today the market of gamers encompasses all age groups; so you're seeing games targetted toward every corner of the market. Your little brother might not be mature enough to play Grand Theft Auto, but nobody's forcing him to, and there are hundreds of other good games out there that are suitable for him to play.
Don't look at the diversification of the industry as an abandonment of kid-friendly games; there'll always be a strong market for kid-friendly games, and you see them on all platforms, not just Nintendo's; so they're not going anywhere. They just have company now.
A concerned parent can use the ESRB ratings to help them determine what they should let their spawn play.
quote:
Drysart's little brother wrote this stupid shit:
A concerned parent can use the ESRB ratings to help them determine what they should let their spawn play.
And a GOOD parent will ask someone WHY it's rated that way.
Generally, the ratings will mislead people away from an okay game. While GTA may be a kickass game, there is a certain amount of inherent violence associated with it, and, dare I say, nessicary. Other games are rated teen/mature because of general dramatic themes. While this is an okay idea, you should still ask someone why it's rated that way to get some idea.. Or better yet, rent it and sit with your kid and play it with them.
I've seen many a parent walk into EB with pre-teens and turn down an acceptable game (Like ratchet and clank) because it had a teen rating. I'll go over to them and say it has a teen rating because you can shoot cartoony guns, but it's a lot of fun, has oodles of humor, and a semi-decent storyline and many hours of gameplay.. enough to keep them out of your hair for three or even four hours at a time.
I still say the ESRB needs an overhaul.. or at least more descriptors.. but for a self-imposed rating system, it's pretty good.
Little cousin was in town, staying at friend's house. 13 years old or something similar. We picked him and his friend out to take them to dinner, been a couple years since we saw them.
Talking with parents in kitchen, and cousin's friend's mother mentions how she wont let them go see the new 'Starsky and Hutch' movie because of all the violence on those kinds of movies. And as she is talking, over her shoulder in the living room, I am looking at her 10 year old son sitting there playing GTA: Vice City on a PS2.
And as he was cruising along a sidewalk mowing down pedestrians, the mother goes off on a little binge about how she keeps her children away from such violent media.
The timing on that was just perfect
Traditionally this came from whailing, or being whailed on, by some other kid for something one of you did. Learning a bit of respect for your fellow man, and to keep your mouth shut when you need to.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Maradon! wrote:
I guess I'm a regular nutbag since I always felt depictions of violence were important to a child's development.
I agree, but an obssesive amount of violence is when its unhealthy. When I was growing up, only five, six, seven years ago, they were just coming out with all the 3D systems with the capabilities of displaying violence at an extreme level. I never played them, mostly because my parents didnt care to buy them, but also because I was content with playing my super nintendo and NES. Now, I played violent games like street fighter and MKT back then, but the level of violence of those games compared to regularly recognized violent games today was nothing. What the kids are growing up playing today is a lot different than what my/your generation grew up playing, and I think its going to have a dramatic effect on the children unfortunate enough to have parents that dont moderate what they are playing.
Granted though, Im only 16 and my opinion on life isnt worth much, but I just thought Id put in my two cents.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Puggy who doth quote:
I agree, but an obssesive amount of violence is when its unhealthy.
No depiction of violence, however excessive, is unhealthy to a mentally stable person.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
No depiction of violence, however excessive, is unhealthy to a mentally stable person.
Being mentally stable does not mean that the way someone thinks cannot be influenced by what happens around them (and the things they experience growing up*).
*edit Puggy fucked around with this message on 10-09-2004 at 04:33 PM.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Puggy who doth quote:
Being mentally stable does not mean that the way someone thinks cannot be influenced by what happens around them.
Nothing in video games really happens, and even if it did the influence on a mentally stable person would not be negative. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 10-09-2004 at 04:34 PM.
Those were done by exhisting unstable people who were crazy enough to think video game answers were real world answers.
quote:
Elvish Crack Piper was listening to Cher while typing:
Stable people dont do the crazy shit that is blamed on video games.Those were done by exhisting unstable people who were crazy enough to think video game answers were real world answers.
Im not saying they do, and anyone that does is obviously mentally unstable. Im just saying that while growing up your mind is still maleable and your choices and thought processes later on in life are going to be influenced by what happened to you as a child.
But wait, I did play First Person shooters!
And I know Im not a genetically engineered SUPER SOLDIER.
Fuck.
I guess I cant go kill the covenant IRL now.
Maradon, Hold me.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Cuba:
Nothing in video games really happens, and even if it did the influence on a mentally stable person would not be negative.
I know and Im not talking about a mentally stable, grown person. Im talking about young children that are still easily influenced.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Elvish Crack Piper!
Exactly, which is why I played Star Wars flight sims and amiga platform games instead of KILL KILL KILL KILL.But wait, I did play First Person shooters!
And I know Im not a genetically engineered SUPER SOLDIER.
Fuck.
I guess I cant go kill the covenant IRL now.
Maradon, Hold me.
Thats not what Im saying at all. Youre just trying to start an argument. Im just saying that the kids growing up with murder, prostitutes, gangs, and all kinds of other things in their games are going to be more desensitized and less likely to think about violent actions before they carry them out when they get older.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Puggy booooze lime pole over bench lick:
I know and Im not talking about a mentally stable, grown person. Im talking about young children that are still easily influenced.
What, exactly, do you think is the influence of exposure to depictions of violence?
Mentally healthy children will not be negatively affected by it, particularly if they have guidance. This has been proven scores upon scores of times. In my opinion, it is even beneficial.
I reiterate; no depiction of violence, however excessive, is unhealthy to a mentally stable person, regardless of age. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 10-09-2004 at 05:00 PM.
quote:
Puggy probably says this to all the girls:
Im saying that the kids growing up with murder, prostitutes, gangs, and all kinds of other things in their games are going to be more desensitized and less likely to think about violent actions before they carry them out when they get older.
quote:
x--PuggyO-('-'Q) :
Im just saying that the kids growing up with murder, prostitutes, gangs, and all kinds of other things in their games are going to be more desensitized and less likely to think about violent actions before they carry them out when they get older.
So what? That's a very, very good thing. A child who is more apt to defend himself, who is aware of prostitution and the existence of gang mentality is much better off than a child that is not.
Exposure to such things does not change a child's perception of the circumstances under which such things are nesscessary, or of the failings and dangers of things like gang mentality, particularly if that child has guidance and a mentor (parent maybe?) with whom to discuss such things. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 10-09-2004 at 05:11 PM.
Maradon, I can see where you are coming from, but keep in mind that "Mentally stable" kids arent the ones that bring knives to school or call in bomb threats.
Correct me if I'm interpretting wrong, but you think that no depiction of violence, no matter how much, is ever going to affect a child. Dont you think a child who had just watched a nice happy-go-lucky show (like anything shown on "Nick Jr.") is any less likely than the child whose just watched power rangers or played GTA to be aggressive? I think the idea that a child is not influenced by his or her surroundings is pretty bad.
quote:
Maradon! enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
So what? That's a very, very good thing. A child who is more apt to defend himself, who is aware of prostitution and the existence of gang mentality is much better off than a child that is not.
Sure, it can be a good thing,but not all good. But Im saying that with all the regular exposure to all that violence, a person would become less likely to think about violent acts before they commit them. Hypothetically, if there was a child that was allowed to smack around another kid his age until he was considered an adult, do you think he would be more or less likely to consider the consequences of doing that to any other person as an adult? (Even if he knew what he was doing was wrong, he was still being allowed to do it so in his mind it would go without consequence*)
Like I said initially, I agree with you for the most part that exposure to violence, to an extent, is important during someone's childhood. I just have a different opinion about how much violence is too much, and its probably not going to change and we'd probably be arguing forever because theres no real winning side to this argument. Lets agree to disagree?
Puggy fucked around with this message on 10-09-2004 at 05:24 PM.
*edit
quote:
x--ManticoreO-('-'Q) :
Maradon, I can see where you are coming from, but keep in mind that "Mentally stable" kids arent the ones that bring knives to school or call in bomb threats.
Mentally unstable kids will bring knives to school and call in bomb threats with or without video games.
quote:
Correct me if I'm interpretting wrong, but you think that no depiction of violence, no matter how much, is ever going to affect a child.
You are interpreting me wrong. I'm saying that no depiction of violence, no matter how excessive, is ever going to negatively affect a normal child.
quote:
Dont you think a child who had just watched a nice happy-go-lucky show (like anything shown on "Nick Jr.") is any less likely than the child whose just watched power rangers or played GTA to be aggressive?
No, I don't think that, because I don't think aggressive feelings and actions are caused by exposure to violence. Countless kids watch power rangers and play GTA and don't exhibit violent behavior. To follow your logic, they would all be violent and that is demonstrably and wildly untrue.
quote:
I think the idea that a child is not influenced by his or her surroundings is pretty bad.
So do I, that's why I never suggested that. My point is that the way a child IS influenced by their surroundings can be either positive or negative. To a mentally healthy child, or even a slightly unstable child with guidance, any influance can be positive. That is the definition of mental health.
I lose.Yay for Mara being more eloquent than I.
I like to think that maybe video games will be a new medium for literature and storytelling. I like to think that there will be a lot of people with an idea they want to share or story they want to tell, and they'll be able to reach a larger audience with video games.
Did that make sense?
Peter is already planning Fables 2-5 
quote:
Manticore had this to say about Cuba:
I think as long as the video game industry can sell games like "Way of the Samurai" and "Fable" that are slightly open-ended and slightly replayable, they're not going to step it up-- or atleast they'll step it up very slowly.
I disagree with this and credit it to the common, and (forgiveness) ignorant thought that money is the all-driving motivator.
There are plenty of games out there that have been very good on release and have been "stepped up" immediately for the sequels. Example: Blizzard made money with Warcraft 2. Why wouldn't they just keep with that same system (no heroes, nothing else) for Warcraft 3?
Answer: They care about games. I don't think that game developers sit around a table asking "How can we make more money off of people?", though the thought certainly enters their mind every now and again, I think they ask themselves, "Wouldn't it be cool if we could implement this?"
Even if you don't believe that and still think that all the game companies care about is money, it's logical that they would step the games up immediately. It would be safe to assume that if a good game got a lot of players, then a spectacular game would get a lot more.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
I disagree with this and credit it to the common, and (forgiveness) ignorant thought that money is the all-driving motivator.There are plenty of games out there that have been very good on release and have been "stepped up" immediately for the sequels. Example: Blizzard made money with Warcraft 2. Why wouldn't they just keep with that same system (no heroes, nothing else) for Warcraft 3?
Answer: They care about games. I don't think that game developers sit around a table asking "How can we make more money off of people?", though the thought certainly enters their mind every now and again, I think they ask themselves, "Wouldn't it be cool if we could implement this?"
Even if you don't believe that and still think that all the game companies care about is money, it's logical that they would step the games up immediately. It would be safe to assume that if a good game got a lot of players, then a spectacular game would get a lot more.
I said nothing about being motivated by money, I think it's just that they dont NEED to make something new yet. Warcraft 3 would have just been another Warcraft 2 with snazzier graphics of the heroes didn't show up. No one is going to want to buy another fable, so the game companies are going to have to step it up SOMEWHERE so they can bust out another 'fable'
quote:
ACES! Another post by Manticore:
I said nothing about being motivated by money, I think it's just that they dont NEED to make something new yet. Warcraft 3 would have just been another Warcraft 2 with snazzier graphics of the heroes didn't show up. No one is going to want to buy another fable, so the game companies are going to have to step it up SOMEWHERE so they can bust out another 'fable'
They don't need to make something new...but nobody's buying so they need to do something?
quote:
Manticore had this to say about Robocop:
I said nothing about being motivated by money, I think it's just that they dont NEED to make something new yet.
This is exactly why movies have the special effects, acting, and writing that they did in the 1950s.
quote:
theravenofcu came out of the closet to say:
I've noticed that most little kids become very argumentative, hostile and violent after playing violent games.
I've noticed that most little kids become very argumentative, hostile and violent in the absence of good parenting.
quote:
x--theravenofcuO-('-'Q) :
Just from personal experiance, I've noticed that most little kids become very argumentative, hostile and violent after playing violent games.
I've noticed that buggies almost invariably follow horses, thus the horses must be building the buggies.
But in all seriousness, Scruff Magruff says no to buggy-drivers. Do what's right kids.
