| Bodhesatva said: If we can agree on that much, consider this. If there are no restrictions whatsoever: Those who wish to prevent their children from playing these games are considerably impaired. It is extremely difficult, by both my admission and yours, to stop children from playing these games by yourself as a parent, because you cannot watch these children 24/7. Those who would allow their children from playing these games are not impaired at all. Now, if there are some restrictions: Those who wish to prevent their children from playing these games are assisted. Those who would allow their children to play these games are only mildly inconvenienced; instead of the children buying the game themselves, the parent can go and buy it for them.
Or, put more succinctly; having no restrictions on these games greatly inconveniences those who do not wish their children to play these games, while having some restrictions is only mildly inconvenient to those who are willing to let their children play these games. As such, I'm willing to personally be mildly inconvenienced (I would let my own children play these games, if I ever had children, and if they wanted to) in order to greatly assist those who do not share my views. |
Bod, why is that there is a "wider inconvenience" for those who do not wish for their kids to play these types of games, while parents who are more liberal to the matter only get a "mild inconvenience?"
I think it's safe to say that when a kid wants a game, it's not the child with the cash, but the parent, and if a parent is concerned with what their kids are playing, then why can't they purchase or go along with their child to see what game he/she wants? Simple: Don't give the kid cash. If you want to be "over-protective," then don't do a half-assed job doing it.
This law that you approve of isn't "bulletproof," although the same can be said of most laws, but they do work to a degree. The main reason these laws are in place is so kids don't play "mature" games, but kids are still finding ways to play them, as you also agree with me.
You can put as many labels you want on the game, you can put as many descriptions as you want on the game, but there still will be parents who will still feel that it's inadequate. We now have an "E for ages 10 and up," and there are a few talks here and there that there might be one more that will go in between T and M. The best way to deal with these parents is to have them go out and judge what is appropriate for their kids themselves.
As much as you may sympathesize with parents and legal guardians, I tend to be put them under strict scrutiny.
One fabulous example sadly happened in my state: Grandmother buys GTA for her grandson, and she gets upset that the kid had a chance to see some tities and some sex within the game. I know damn well had that box stated that their was "nudity" and "sexual material," there wouldn't have been a lawsuit because, well,... it's on the box. Grandmother Goose bought her grandson a game that contained over-the-top violence, where you can shoot cops, run over pedestrains, beat on hookers, yet, some 3D tities were responsible for her being concerned over the well-being of her grandkid?!
If you are going to be lenient on the matter... then don't do a half-assed job doing it.
