Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games

GTA V Proves a Lot of Parents Still Don't Know or Care About ESRB Ratings 621

Posted by Soulskill
from the rated-L-for-learn-how-to-be-a-parent dept.
Deathspawner writes "Grand Theft Auto V has shown itself to be potential GOTY material, and has even managed to break a sales record already. But aside from that, the game has also become one of the most adult-oriented games ever released, with torture, drug use and sex prevalent not long after beginning the game. You'd expect this gameplay to deter most parents from picking the game up for their young children — but not so. An anonymous editorial at Kotaku written by a video game store employee says that out of the ~1,000 copies sold in the first week, at least 10% of them went to parents accompanied by a child. Clearly, this could be interpreted as a problem. Techgage adds that this is one of the biggest problems facing gaming today. With one breath, many parents criticize video games for being so violent, and with the next, they're saying 'thanks' at the counter after picking up these very games for their kids. While ESRB ratings and other warnings about violent games for kids have good reason to exist, many parents still ignore them, aren't aware to them, or simply don't care about their warnings."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GTA V Proves a Lot of Parents Still Don't Know or Care About ESRB Ratings

Comments Filter:
  • Some people... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SpaceWiz (54904) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @01:57PM (#44938629)

    Some people still think that video games are only for kids, regardless of the content of the game. Getting past this idea would help a lot.

    • Re:Some people... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:06PM (#44938813)

      Some people also have the silly idea that violent video games can somehow harm children.

      Can we finally put this concept to bed, please? Your ten-year-old isn't going to be irreparably mentally harmed from playing GTA5. Or from watching a violent movie or sneaking a look at some porn on the Internet.

      • Re:Some people... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:09PM (#44938883) Homepage Journal

        This was brought up in another conversation I had today...

        We have this idea that kids as old as 16 aren't "fully formed" people. But if your kid doesn't understand the difference between fantasy and reality at 10 or 11 or 12 then there is a parenting problem or other general mental illness. They aren't just lumps of clay that get reasoning ability by magic on their 18th birth day. It's amazing how most of the population forgets what being aged 10-18 is like later in life... this is something they should know already.

        • Re:Some people... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Nadaka (224565) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:30PM (#44939203)

          Part of the problem is that that the majority of adults can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality either. How many people are religious after all? And even if you buy into the silly notion that one religion may be correct, then the billions of people who follow the other religions are still fully believing in fantasy.

          But then, simple violence and sex in media does not represent a fundamental attack on human rationality that religion in media does, even though it is somehow seen as more acceptable.

          • Re:Some people... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by houghi (78078) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @04:47PM (#44941121)

            Religion? Just look at advertising. It is BASED on people not knowing the difference between fantasy and reality.

          • by ultranova (717540)

            Part of the problem is that that the majority of adults can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality either.

            Indeed. And a particularly common fantasy is the idea that people who disagree with you are evil or stupid or both. Look at US politics to get an idea where that road will lead, and ask yourself if you really want to go there.

        • by gstoddart (321705)

          We have this idea that kids as old as 16 aren't "fully formed" people. But if your kid doesn't understand the difference between fantasy and reality at 10 or 11 or 12 then there is a parenting problem or other general mental illness.

          I'm not sure it's quite so black and white.

          Does your child understand that these things wouldn't be acceptable? Or do they think that's how you're supposed to do it?

          There's an oft-quoted thing (which I have no idea is true) that you can't test a teenager to see if they're a soc

          • Re:Some people... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:48PM (#44939525) Homepage Journal

            I think you missed part of my point, which is that what a person can handle is based on that person. There are 30 year olds "kids" out there that can't handle GTA, but I'm sure that there are 8 year olds that can. There is nothing magic about the number, though my personal feeling (not a parent mind you) that a 12 year old kid should have a concept of art, that depiction of something doesn't equal promotion of something, and they can rollplay as a bad person without being a bad person themselves.

            Kids aren't commodities. They are people (this is why the "fully formed person" and the hatred of teenagers get on my craw... they aren't non-humans) and each one is different. This article made some pretty sweeping statements about what is right and wrong for ANY person.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Frobnicator (565869)

              There are 30 year olds "kids" out there that can't handle GTA, but I'm sure that there are 8 year olds that can. There is nothing magic about the number

              No. That might have been true with GTA in the past. Not GTA 5.

              Go look at the topless lap dance minigame. Well, don't, because doing so at work might get you fired, and doing it at home might end your marriage. It is a full-on very graphic boobs-in-face lapdance.

              No reasonable adult would deny the minigame is softcore porn.

              While it is true some 8-year-olds can visit porn sites and see it elsewhere, in doing so they get all the "adults only" and "this is a work of fiction" and other warnings that tell you i

              • In most countries of the world, if a non-parent gave an 8-year-old access to the same level of porn as GTA 5's strip club, they would be severely punished.

                Handing GTA 5 to an 8-year-old child and telling them to enjoy themselves is not acceptable.

                Not played GTA5 yet, just 4.
                I find it ever amazing that what you think is most unacceptable - or at least the example you choose - is not the murder or the general violence, or the drugs or the rape, but the soft core porn.
                Now I will accept the argument that it's the attitude around that soft core porn that is pernicious and corrupting - that women are sex objects to be used and then discarded - but I cannot accept that a strip club is the worst thing in that game.
                Why does a film showing people shooting eac

                • In most countries of the world, if a non-parent gave an 8-year-old access to the same level of porn as GTA 5's strip club, they would be severely punished.

                  Why does a film showing people shooting each other get a PG while you still can't yet have a fully naked man in a sexual situation in mainstream entertainment. Seriously? Which one do you think is actually the more dangerous idea of acceptable behaviour?

                  Morals and ethics, basically. Minors are 'protected' from sex in almost every country, and that protection includes restrictions from giving them or showing them porn. The age varies around the world, I understand some countries the age of consent is as low as 14, but until that age they are protected.

                  After doing some web searches that are sure to get me on various watch lists, It looks like in the US it is unlawful to show porn to minors even if they are the parents... except possibly Texas [dallasnews.com].

                • by jkauzlar (596349)

                  It's not uncommon to point out that showing tits is ridiculously regarded as more of a problem that showing violence and gore, but the problem I would have with GTA V is not the tits, it's the sexualization of them. If I had kids, I wouldn't mind bringing them to a nude beach, but I wouldn't bring them to a strip club. As far as the sex and violence, whether they can distinguish between real life and fantasy is moot. Young kids barely even HAVE a "real life", so the values they're taking from media aren't g

          • Re:Some people... (Score:4, Informative)

            by Frobnicator (565869) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @04:01PM (#44940563) Journal

            Stealing cars and smacking down ho's wasn't something you wanted them growing up emulating.

            If that was all you did in GTA 5, I'd probably agree that some youths could play it.

            But that is NOT what GTA 5 is like.

            In GTA 3 you had the option of picking up a prostitute. The car would rock back and forth, you lose money and gain health, then the prostitute gets out. It was a little controversial, but you could just as easily see this in The Sims by making the characters 'WooHoo'.

            Contrast this with GTA 5 where you are encouraged to see and repeatedly play a minigame with graphic topless lap dances and get points for interactively molesting women. This is not a stripper dancing in the background, this is full on realistic boobs-in-your-face interactive softcore porn.

            So lets say you're fine with your seven year old watching interactive porn. What about the violence?

            Look at the older games, you could avoid some violence, and even though you were playing a bad character you could keep the violence to a minimum if you wanted.

            Not so in GTA 5. You are required (as the player) to engage in gratuitous torture. We're not talking about mild depictions of something bad going on. This is you as the player being required to commit heinous virtual crimes. It is very explicit, and very graphic. Even many adults balk at that point in the game.

            If you are looking for a game of "stealing cars and smacking down ho's", a game that you can let your pre-teen child play, then go get Need For Speed.

            This game should have been rated as AO.

        • by SleazyRidr (1563649) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @03:02PM (#44939759)

          There is an argument to be made that at that age their brains are still developing and you don't want them developing the killing hookers areas. I think that's quite valid: you want your children to grow up to do good things, so you should be encouraging good things as early as possible.

          • There is an argument to be made that at that age their brains are still developing and you don't want them developing the killing hookers areas.

            I don't think that's a good argument, but it is damn amusing. I can only laugh at the people who think such things are even remotely common, or exist at all.

        • Re:Some people... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @03:49PM (#44940393) Journal

          It's worth remembering here that the objection is not that children do not possess the ability to recognise the difference between fantasy and reality, rather it's that they're "impressionable". Their behavioural patterns are still being established, via a system of negative and positive rewards for their behaviour.

          Normally, when a child commits a needlessly aggressive act, they are negatively rewarded by their parents telling them off, or possibly by the parents hitting them in (hopefully) extreme circumstances. When a child plays a violent video game, the game purposefully rewards violent behaviour with things like progress, a sense of achievement, unlockables/collectables, etc.

          Being children, they unconsciously associate the endorphin rush with aggressive acts, or at least, the aggressive acts they commit to video game characters. The obvious question, of course, is whether that positive association with simulated violence corresponds to a positive association with actual violence, or even just aggression. That's something for the behavioural psychologists to decide. Until they do, I think it would be wise to exercise caution.

      • Re:Some people... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TWiTfan (2887093) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:17PM (#44939021)

        No, your kid is probably not going to be "irreparably mentally harmed" from being exposed to violent video games too early. But there is such a thing as exposing a kid to shit that they're too young to handle (or understand). And that's not a good thing.

        A kid's innocence is a precious thing, and it's a shame to squander it too early. That doesn't mean I want to have my 12-year-old still believing in Santa Claus, but I also don't want him introduced to the ugly world of violent crime, drugs, and prostitution while he's still in kindergarten either.

        • Re:Some people... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:47PM (#44939519)

          Funny thing about a lot of parents, at least in the US, is they believe that seeing a woman's nipple does more damage to a child's innocence than any amount of gory body shrapnel.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by sunking2 (521698)
            That's because exposure to shrapnel is pretty unlikely. Exposure to women will happen. Women are not fantasy and we interact with them every day and it would be nice if they weren't treated like objects of desire 24/7 rather than the between 9pm-3am that it is supposed to be.
            • Re:Some people... (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @03:48PM (#44940379)

              What made you think that images of female nipples had to involve porn or sex? I mean maybe you're being a bit tongue in cheek here but let's face it - by classifying a woman's breast as 'dirty' and something that would 'taint innocence', puritanism has indelibly associated women with porn and lewd behaviour. Ironically the same applies to hardcore feminism, albeit from a different angle.

            • Re:Some people... (Score:4, Interesting)

              by rolfwind (528248) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @04:38PM (#44941061)

              That's because exposure to shrapnel is pretty unlikely. Exposure to women will happen. Women are not fantasy and we interact with them every day and it would be nice if they weren't treated like objects of desire 24/7 rather than the between 9pm-3am that it is supposed to be.

              I'm waiting for the punchline here, because nudity is pervasive in European media (at least when I was growing up) and I got desensitized to nipples. They're about as exciting as men's nipples, like the nipples I seen in the mirror every day. It's actually shockingly sad you would compare a simple nipple to gory body shrapnel.

              I mean, you could take your argument and apply it in favor of women wearing burkas.

        • Completely agree.

          FWIW, when I was in my very early twenties, I played a game on my Amiga called "Hired Guns". It was awesome. Recommended to anyone with UAE and access to an abandonware copy.

          It also, literally, gave me nightmares. Over several nights. I'd stop playing it, pick it up a few weeks later, and the nightmares would start again. And yeah, they were images related directly to what was in the game, it wasn't some weird coincidence where I'd have a dream about scary ponies or something.

          That wa

      • Re:Some people... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by VortexCortex (1117377) <VortexCortex@ p ... r e trograde.com> on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @04:26PM (#44940911)

        Some people also have the silly idea that violent video games can somehow harm children.

        Can we finally put this concept to bed, please? Your ten-year-old isn't going to be irreparably mentally harmed from playing GTA5. Or from watching a violent movie or sneaking a look at some porn on the Internet.

        ... or from hunting deer, or slaughtering their own food, or gutting a chicken, or seeing everyone running around nude in Africa.

        It's interesting isn't it? A 3rd world child knows more about reality from merely existing than a child in the USA. You laugh when the 6 year old child thinks women have penises too, or that men don't have them... You fumble for words to describe the cycle of life and death as if such simple things aren't known to any who helps cook meals... Then you wonder why as they grow older they have severe relationship issues, teen pregnancy, and haven't a care in the world about politics, or their nation's killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in blame shifted retaliation for a terrorist attack that killed a few thousand.

        If you ask me, we should be showing the kids even more "violent" video games. Let's have 3rd grade curriculum require playing a Hiroshima survivor simulator... Or at least watch the cartoon. [youtube.com] That's how your war budget could get redirected to NASA instead: Stop raising vapid ignoramuses.

    • Some people still think that video games are only for kids, regardless of the content of the game. Getting past this idea would help a lot.

      Even if people never get a clue, that idea is rapidly aging itself out of existence: People don't obviously 'grow out' of gaming (many cut back since they have other things to do, some do stop entirely; but there appears to be no particular demographic cliff after which gaming plunges into nonexistence); and such gaming landmarks as the NES are old. If you were born when that thing hit US release, you are 28 now. If you were old enough to play it when it hit US release, you could easily be mid 30s to early

    • Re:Some people... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:44PM (#44939471) Journal
      "Ma'am, I must take 15 seconds before you purchase this game to inform you that it includes content such as fucking prostitutes in the back seat of a stolen vehicle and then murdering them to get your money back, as well as torturing and murdering ... basically anyone. Oh and fucking whores is a good way to make yourself healthy. Is this purchase for a child?"
  • Different Parents (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @01:58PM (#44938637)
    "With one breath, many parents criticize video games for being so violent, and with the next, they're saying 'thanks' at the counter after picking up these very games for their kids."

    Maybe these are two different groups of parents...
    • by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:01PM (#44938697) Homepage Journal

      Well.. this and the U.S. still has this puritan crap going on in the background that makes general violence and minimal amount of gore FINE but that showing too much of a boob (or anything slightly sexual) will TOTALLY CORRUPT MY BABY!

      Seriously... killing people is fine but something that makes you feel good and is a gift to mankind.. NO WAY. OMG!!

      • by Hentes (2461350)

        What's your point? GTA could get its rating based solely on the amount of violence.

        • GTA could get its rating based soley on the amount of violence immediately proceeding any sex.(but how else are you supposed to get your money back?)

        • I was spouting off, but there is a point here.

          And that is that if there is any major scandal and wringing of hands about GTA V it will be about the stripper scenes, the stripper going back to the apartment, making it rain, and the like. It won't be about the violence.

          • by Hentes (2461350)

            I guess in both cases, the reaction depends on the amount and severity. The reason why violence appears to be treated less severely is simply that kids understand death sooner than they understand sex.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Hatta (162192)

          GTA could get its rating based solely on the amount of violence.

          GTA V is rated M. If it had included sex, it would be rated AO. How do we know this? Because GTA:SA was also rated M. When it was discovered that there was a hidden sex scene, which you had to modify the game to uncover, it was rerated AO.

          His point stands. Gratuitous violence is perceived as much less harmful than even non-explicit sex by those we are supposed to trust to make value judgements.

      • by houghi (78078) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:36PM (#44939313)

        but that showing too much of a boob (or anything slightly sexual) will TOTALLY CORRUPT MY BABY!

        Well, obviously. Boobs and nipples especially are not intended for babies.

    • by Russ1642 (1087959) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:07PM (#44938829)

      I'd wager we're talking about the same parents. The ones that are vocally opposed to violent video games are the ones who think that if WalMart sells it then it must be ok for little Jimmy. They're naivety knows no bounds.

    • by OakDragon (885217)
      This comment:

      at least 10% of them went to parents accompanied by a child

      I guess is based on this quote from the linked article:

      Last week my store sold over a thousand copies of GTA V, at least a hundred of which were sold to parents for children who could barely even see over my counter

      Could it be for the parent maybe?

  • by TWiTfan (2887093) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @01:59PM (#44938673)

    No mom, this isn't one of those bad videogames. Trust me.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:00PM (#44938685)

    This type of irresponsible behaviour shouldn't be tolerated.

    These so-called "parents" should have their parenting licenses revoked, and their children impounded and/or destroyed.

  • by Murdoch5 (1563847)
    Why does the content matter? Playing a game with offensive / questionable content doesn't impart that behavior onto the player. Those ratings are pointless
    • by TWiTfan (2887093)

      It matters because I don't want my kid exposed to the world of evil shitheels before she's old enough to realize that it's not a good thing to be an evil shitheel. I want her to be old enough to have a foundation in decency before she's introduced to the world of indecency. I don't want her introduced to crime before she's old enough to understand that crime has consequences. That's called "good parenting," (as opposed to "shit parenting") of course.

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      well it's too bad if the kids will know what "waterboarding" means when mentioned in the news!

      there's also tits and what have you in the game... and also golf. but I can bet that some of those parents were just buying the game for themselves.

  • by Ralph Wiggam (22354) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:01PM (#44938715) Homepage

    "With one breath, many parents criticize video games for being so violent, and with the next, they're saying 'thanks' at the counter after picking up these very games for their kids."

    Are the same people saying both of these things? Or is it possible that "parents" includes millions of different people who feel differently about many things.

  • by steak (145650) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:02PM (#44938723) Homepage Journal

    This is the current equivalent of parents dumping their kids in rated R movies.

  • by stewsters (1406737) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:02PM (#44938733)
    At least 10 percent of parents would take their kids to see Michelangelo's David given the chance, even though he is in the nude. A masterpiece is a masterpiece, and art often gets past people's filters.
  • by KiloByte (825081) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:02PM (#44938743)

    I'd say parents know about ratings -- in fact, they know not only about their existence but also quality. And, especially, relevance.

    In other words, they don't give a f...

    If your children hasn't seen enough porn already, I pity both you and your offspring, as this means you keep them in a cage.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      Yes, we should have 12 years of watching torture porn.

      You're statement is clueless and so vague as to lose all meaning.

      • by KiloByte (825081)

        Your 12 years old kid should also know not to enter that seedy bar in a dark alley next to his walk from school.

  • Logical fallacy (Score:5, Informative)

    by Xtifr (1323) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:03PM (#44938747) Homepage

    The fact that someone bought the game while accompanied by a child does not mean they're buying it for the child. My brother often takes his kids to the game store, and and may buy game for himself or for his kids. Or, frequently, both.

    That said, yes, there probably a lot of people too clueless to realize that the one game that is probably the most famous of all games in the world for not being for kids isn't for kids. But trying to estimate the number of people in that category by counting the number of people who happen to buy it while having a child in tow is just as clueless, in quite another way.

    • by Thyamine (531612)
      I was thinking the same. That anecdotally it is an interesting point, but we don't know for certain that a parent/child combo means that the child will be playing. And really as a game store employee, that's all they can really do: point out what they saw, and then let other people draw conclusions. I'm sure some of them don't care or fall into the bad parent category, but like parent post said, a lot of those people may be buying it just for themselves.
    • by jittles (1613415)

      The fact that someone bought the game while accompanied by a child does not mean they're buying it for the child. My brother often takes his kids to the game store, and and may buy game for himself or for his kids. Or, frequently, both.

      That said, yes, there probably a lot of people too clueless to realize that the one game that is probably the most famous of all games in the world for not being for kids isn't for kids. But trying to estimate the number of people in that category by counting the number of people who happen to buy it while having a child in tow is just as clueless, in quite another way.

      Agreed that it is a fallacy but... I have seen the child pick them game out and say "(Parental Unit) buy me this one." And they do. Without question. Without even looking at the box. When the local Blockbuster was about to close due to bankruptcy I went in to frantically spend a gift card. While there, I saw a 6 year old child pick out Saints Row and the mother bought it without question. I can't imagine ever letting a 6 year old play that game.

    • The fact that someone bought the game while accompanied by a child does not mean they're buying it for the child.

      Not for sure, no, but it seems pretty likely. If you don't want your kid to play a game then it seems like a pretty dumb idea to take them to store, allow them to watch you buy it, and then tell them they can't play it. By far the best thing is to buy it on sly and never let them know you have it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:04PM (#44938767)

    What we need is a law forcing parents to raise their kids the way I think they should be raised.

  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland.yahoo@com> on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:05PM (#44938797) Homepage Journal

    parents aren't a hive mind.

    Sheesh.

    • by geek (5680)

      parents aren't a hive mind.

      Sheesh.

      Exactly. The article almost lays blame on "parents" here, assuming all parents do this. I'd say 10% is pretty good considering how fucked up society is right now. There are some places where greater than 50% of the kids drop out of school due to a real life version of GTA because their parents don't care or even actively encourage them. I'll take 10% on a make believe GTA any day.

      I have no intention of letting my son play games like this. I'd rather he went outside and played sports instead. But regardless,

    • by fishybell (516991)

      parents aren't a hive mind.

      ...yet.

  • Overlap? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    And what percentage of those 100 copies solid were to parents that complain about this stuff? The two are not necessarily the same subset, they could even be entirely disjoint or minuscule in overlap.

    Some parents have faith in the maturity of their children. Some are of course just stupid.

  • by MDillenbeck (1739920) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:10PM (#44938893)
    As people have already pointed out, the parents who complain about violent video games are not the same parents as those buying it. However, when one parent buys it for their kids and another doesn't, it brings about the issue of loaning the game or going over to the other child's house to play it. Unfortunately, it should not be the responsibility of the industry or the government to censor or ban these types of games - it is still the responsibility of the parent wanting to restrict their child from the game to raise them in a manner where they not only avoid purchasing it but instill in their child a willingness to abide by their restrictions. Alas, many parents do not want to go this extra mile and fulfill their duties as a parent. (Yes, I know it is hard - but just as life is not fair, parenting isn't easy.)
    • "As people have already pointed out, the parents who complain about violent video games are not the same parents as those buying it."

      Actually, I'm not totally certain of this. My step-sister and her husband are the sort of people who would complain about this, and I've seen their kids playing GTA4 at their house. Hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance are no problem for a certain portion of our population, unfortunately.

  • by TechyImmigrant (175943) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:10PM (#44938911) Journal

    There's sex and drugs and crime everywhere on the internets.

    Don't try to protect your children from all the evil out there. They're going to find it sooner or later. Teach your children judgement. They'll be needing it.

  • That's because the ratings err ridiculously on the safe side. GTA V is probably fine for any kid older than 12 except if you're a religious zealot that's trying to pass you unhealthy sexphobia on to your kids.

    GTA probably won't harm much younger kids either; I have carefully tried what the effect of GTA SA was when my 4 y.o. kid watched me playing. He does not identify with the character nor does he relate the more violent parts to the real world; his reaction is more like that on a nature video about lions

  • What evidence is there that GTAV poses any threat to children?

  • I haven't played the mission where Trevor tortures the guy by pulling teeth, electrocution and waterboarding (but I have seen it on youtube).. yet I've been at the strip club, the girls take off their tops but there's no vaginal nudity. I even went home with the stripper "Saphire" for a little extra action but nothing was shown...

    It's weird they would allow the former but not the latter... maybe there is a switch in the settings menu that allows full nudity and images of sex that I haven't seen yet ?
    • by H0p313ss (811249)

      Not sure if this is insightful or trolling, but what the hell.

      This is 2013, torture and violence is as now as American as apple pie, but biology is still taboo.

      • Not trolling.. I was just at Saphire's place about 20 minutes before posting this and I felt very disappointed. It's funny at the strip club I was "raining down" dollar bills and the two strippers never took their clothes off. Like, seriously? We get to torture someone but we're not allowed to see nudity ?!?!

        I had to take my character into a private room to see some tits. And that was it.... The really funny part is when I bought the game the girl at Gamespot warned my wife & I not to play th
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Oronar (942125)
      Because graphic violence only gets a game an M rating. Full nudity and sex automatically get a game an AO (Adult Only) rating. Most retailers refuse to stock AO games and getting an AO rating is effectively a death sentence for a console game since the only place you'd be able to sell them is the Internet and smaller stores. If you want big sales your game has to be sold in Walmart, Toys R Us, Gamestop etc.
  • another story that will give an excuse to the ignorant and childless to give child rearing advise!

  • I VNC'd into my home computer from work yesterday afternoon and my son was watching a youtube video of two guys narrating a GTA session, in which the character was walking around shotgunning people begging for their lives. I have told him I can VNC in at any time, although it doesn't show anything on his display when I do. I am not sure whether to do anything about it. He turned 15 recently, so is not a baby. He has the typical preoccupations with survival knives, airsoft, and pellet guns. He also ha
  • I refuse to buy GTA V for my kids. All the drugs, sex, violence, it's too much. I much rather them sit down and we watch television together. Just last night we watched the 6-o'clock news that had numerous stories about...drugs, sex, and violence. So we switched to something else. We watched the final episode of Dexter.

  • I don't think so. This isn't a problem that gaming can fix; the industry doesn't have the ability to prevent jr from playing inappropriate games. Hell, it's not even their place to say what is or is not inappropriate.

    This is a a problem facing PARENTS, and is one that is self-created in that it's parental ignorance and apathy.

    The gaming industry has fulfilled their responsibilities; they are clearly marking the games to reflect the content in the games. That's the delineation between the industry and the

  • Hmmm..... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ogdenk (712300) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:46PM (#44939489)

    I let my 3 kids play the GTA series. I even taught them how to fire REAL guns.

    Yet they have never committed a violent act against another human being. Because they know video games are entertainment and fantasy. And they know the devastating power of real firearms and their intended purpose. They also know the value of human life and that violence is a desperate last resort.

    They also know that if it ever comes to violence.... you need to be able to dish it out effectively and win.

    Ya see.... I don't need the ESRB or the government telling me how I should raise my own kids. I'll raise them how I see fit and society can f**k off. I really don't care about the opinion of the masses of panicky, scared, arrogant, pompous mothers with extra cash to throw at lobbyists and "ratings boards". As far as I'm concerned they'd be better off spending all that cash on booze and choking on their own vomit.

    They can shelter their kids to the point of being useless, "entitled", drooling retards but the second they try to force their views upon me, we have a problem. Oh... and for the record.... my kids are straight A students with a great interest in the Sciences and History. They also happen to like mowing down prostitutes in GTA for amusement after their homework is finished.

  • by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:49PM (#44939557) Journal

    Are you trying to tell me that some parents... are not good ... at being parents?!? Or maybe some parents believe different things are ok for their kids than other parents?!?

    In related news, Americans hate republicans, but on the other hand some Americans vote for republicans? What can be done to solve this mysterious behavior by Americans? Clearly, this could be interpreted as a problem.

  • by nbauman (624611) on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @02:55PM (#44939655) Homepage Journal

    Why don't parents read Grimm's fairy tales to their children the way we used to do?

Life. Don't talk to me about life. - Marvin the Paranoid Anroid

Working...