im going to put this as clearly as i can
i am personally SICK of religious nuts, and other conservative groups that wish to ban violent video games.
how many times has this topic been addressed to the public?
i beleive it really started with media censoring. not in general, in specifics. what are the censors jobs? in public media, it is to edit out the questionable or profane vocalizations/actions/images to create something of a standard for what is allowable to the general public. is this a bad idea? i dont really think so. would i want my 6 year old nephew turning on the TV to see grotesque, violent scenes; hear the most horendous vocabulary; or view sexually explicit material? HELL NO, i would not. the censors are there for a reason. while most (i hope "most" is accurate) of the adult public can understand this, there are those who choose to take it a step further.
i remember exactly when the "Parental Advisory Explicit Content/Lyrics" came about. i remember the very first CD i bought with the label. Marilyn Manson's "Antichrist Superstar". not 25 minutes after i got in the front door, i watched my father snap the disc into peices before my eyes. why? "because it had the warning on it". is that fair? in the least? it is, in my opinion, a double edged sword. granted, it DOES have a warning label on it; it has content that would be sensitive to some, and impressionable to others. i know for a FACT, the only use of harsh language in "The Matrix" sountrack is "Shit", used maybe 2 times? and the album had the warning as well. but such a warning on particular albums should not be a suprise; when i see a Manson album with the label, i think nothing of it because i know more or less the contained content therin
but music is not television. music is art. music is the creative product of one or more people for an expressive purpose. there are many different kinds of music, with many types of themes, imagery, and vocation. visual art, like music; has also been oppressed since the dawn of creativity. how grand of a work of art is Michaelangelo's "David"? but alas, because the penis is showing, there are those out there who would sheild the eyes of others.
now, back to my main topic. if you are of my age or older, you may remember back in the day, the day of Sega Genesis. Sega voluntarily put ratings on their games: GA (General Audiences), MA-13 (Mortal Kombat was the first to recieve this), and MA-17 (MK2 recieved this). Sega felt it appropriate to put these indicators on their products. why not? are there not CDs with warning due to lyrical content? are there not movies that have a similar rating system for sex, violence and language? props to Sega for such a venture.
then ESRB came into play. a rating system that mainly consists of 3 standards (the other 2 are Early Childhood and Adults Only) E (Everyone), T (Teen), and M (Mature). if you go to the ESRB website (http://www.esrb.org), you will see that they care just as much as everyone else about the content of what is being published. more specifically, they are also directing attention towards the parents to watch what their kids are playing. i agree.
then, finally, we see that people try to blame the video game industry for their children turning a violent side. everytime i hear such things, i become internally irate. my own father wished me not to play or view Wolfenstein 3D or Doom because of its content until i reached a certain age and understanding. i was a preteen when i saw these games; and why did my father allow me to see them? he knew that i understood that the games were not real: they do not represent real life. THAT is the bottom line. the root of these violent outbursts of youth is not due to exposure to video games; it is learning a behavior with no other guidance. though realistic, todays games portray a world unto themselves. Grand Theft Auto has always been singled out for its violent nature; but i put to you how it represents a true view of the world: it doesnt. no matter how real you make it look, sound, or behave; it is still just digital media.
so then, what is my point? PARENTS ARE FUCKING IRRESPONSIBLE. the reason i never grew up to shoot my classmates, police officers, or copycat a videogame in anyway is because my parents taught me the difference between games and life. Life is not a game, it has no reset button. a game will always be a game, and it will always remain the same because it is just a program to appear closer to our own existence.
the blame is not on the games, its developers, or creators. it is the parents. a parent is responsible for the life, health, and well-being of their young; in body and mind. it is not the creators fault that you use video games as a baby sitter, and taught your child how to kill; it is your own fault for not teaching your child the difference, and spending the time to care, and not just assume it will be ok. take responsibility parents. if you cant uphold your duty, you shouldnt have spawned.
how many times has this topic been addressed to the public?
i beleive it really started with media censoring. not in general, in specifics. what are the censors jobs? in public media, it is to edit out the questionable or profane vocalizations/actions/images to create something of a standard for what is allowable to the general public. is this a bad idea? i dont really think so. would i want my 6 year old nephew turning on the TV to see grotesque, violent scenes; hear the most horendous vocabulary; or view sexually explicit material? HELL NO, i would not. the censors are there for a reason. while most (i hope "most" is accurate) of the adult public can understand this, there are those who choose to take it a step further.
i remember exactly when the "Parental Advisory Explicit Content/Lyrics" came about. i remember the very first CD i bought with the label. Marilyn Manson's "Antichrist Superstar". not 25 minutes after i got in the front door, i watched my father snap the disc into peices before my eyes. why? "because it had the warning on it". is that fair? in the least? it is, in my opinion, a double edged sword. granted, it DOES have a warning label on it; it has content that would be sensitive to some, and impressionable to others. i know for a FACT, the only use of harsh language in "The Matrix" sountrack is "Shit", used maybe 2 times? and the album had the warning as well. but such a warning on particular albums should not be a suprise; when i see a Manson album with the label, i think nothing of it because i know more or less the contained content therin
but music is not television. music is art. music is the creative product of one or more people for an expressive purpose. there are many different kinds of music, with many types of themes, imagery, and vocation. visual art, like music; has also been oppressed since the dawn of creativity. how grand of a work of art is Michaelangelo's "David"? but alas, because the penis is showing, there are those out there who would sheild the eyes of others.
now, back to my main topic. if you are of my age or older, you may remember back in the day, the day of Sega Genesis. Sega voluntarily put ratings on their games: GA (General Audiences), MA-13 (Mortal Kombat was the first to recieve this), and MA-17 (MK2 recieved this). Sega felt it appropriate to put these indicators on their products. why not? are there not CDs with warning due to lyrical content? are there not movies that have a similar rating system for sex, violence and language? props to Sega for such a venture.
then ESRB came into play. a rating system that mainly consists of 3 standards (the other 2 are Early Childhood and Adults Only) E (Everyone), T (Teen), and M (Mature). if you go to the ESRB website (http://www.esrb.org), you will see that they care just as much as everyone else about the content of what is being published. more specifically, they are also directing attention towards the parents to watch what their kids are playing. i agree.
then, finally, we see that people try to blame the video game industry for their children turning a violent side. everytime i hear such things, i become internally irate. my own father wished me not to play or view Wolfenstein 3D or Doom because of its content until i reached a certain age and understanding. i was a preteen when i saw these games; and why did my father allow me to see them? he knew that i understood that the games were not real: they do not represent real life. THAT is the bottom line. the root of these violent outbursts of youth is not due to exposure to video games; it is learning a behavior with no other guidance. though realistic, todays games portray a world unto themselves. Grand Theft Auto has always been singled out for its violent nature; but i put to you how it represents a true view of the world: it doesnt. no matter how real you make it look, sound, or behave; it is still just digital media.
so then, what is my point? PARENTS ARE FUCKING IRRESPONSIBLE. the reason i never grew up to shoot my classmates, police officers, or copycat a videogame in anyway is because my parents taught me the difference between games and life. Life is not a game, it has no reset button. a game will always be a game, and it will always remain the same because it is just a program to appear closer to our own existence.
the blame is not on the games, its developers, or creators. it is the parents. a parent is responsible for the life, health, and well-being of their young; in body and mind. it is not the creators fault that you use video games as a baby sitter, and taught your child how to kill; it is your own fault for not teaching your child the difference, and spending the time to care, and not just assume it will be ok. take responsibility parents. if you cant uphold your duty, you shouldnt have spawned.