Typically I like to side with the guy presenting the research. Just can't bring myself to do it this time though, you're presenting yourself like a Psychology undergraduate. Here's why: You two are arguing completely different points, he not once argued playing video games, specifically FPS', don't increase hand eye coordination, reflexes, etc as your studies do show. He's saying playing these violent video games will increase the violence within the child. Which is unequivocally true, our experiences and environment shape our behavior. A person (regardless of age) who shoots people in games all day is going to think of the act of shotting people more than someone who plays only racing games. They spend their time thinking of how awesome that road they just drove was, not that they ought to blow away that old tard in the minivan with a shotty for tailgating them.
I don't blame anybody but our culture, it's a propaganda churning war machine! I love violent videogames, but because I am a gentle person that actually upsets me because we should be raising kids with love in their hearts for their neighbors, not malice. I am one of the least violent people any of you probably know but have violent thoughts constantly cascading through my head, and that is because of all the violence I have played, watched, and read. Videogames offer experiences, albeit artificial, they get recorded in the brain the same way because you are experiencing it with the same senses you perceive the rest of the world with. And children are very impressionable.
once again, i have to disagree
i grew up, right smack from the start, where games started to take on real looks, and not just pixel men, played as much as i could, between other childhood stuff, and we're talking Carmaggedon, blood, doom, and all those others mid/late 90's gore games
am i sitting on death row, for chainsawing people in real life?, nope, do i walk down the street, looking at random people, thinking to myself, i wonder how their entrails would look on the sidewalk?, nope
im a regular joe, even tho, by your logic, i should be exactly that guy you hear about in the news, doing bad ****
as already brought up by someone else, restrictions are not the way forward, instead, you need to look at all the underlaying issues that pushes people over the edge
also, kids aren't as stupid as some parents seem to think, they damn well know the difference between GTA 5, and the real world, in 99,5 % of the cases, and the last 0.5 doesn't go on a killing spree just because of said videogame
Ps. If you actually read any of the stuff i linked, you would see, that Tetris, or any other game, even hello kitty adventure 324902834234 , can enrage you more, than any shooter will
well, i also have the right to tell you that you are very wrong, and unlike you, i have scientific studies, which i already linked some of, backing me up
and yet again, as for all your examples, you fail to realise that there is more behind the incidents than just ''play violent game, kill someone in real life''
thankfully i live in a country where people are smart enought to realise that age restrictions are not the way forward and never will be
edit--
i accept your surrender
[Edited by Drenus, 3/24/2015 4:43:20 PM]
provide evidence, something that you have yet to do, sofar you only rambled on about how things work in your head
[Edited by Drenus, 3/24/2015 5:20:12 PM]
You do not have the right to post in the manner in which you are doing so now. Manner up.
Also if you've actually studied up your history, you would know that North America's ESRB system does have an AO rating since 1994 and it does give it out to games deserving it since then.
Here's an example of a game that was branded AO:
Link
So not only does a system described in the opening post exist, it has been proven for several years that it does not have this apocalyptic effect of destroying the freedom of expression in video games. I'm not sure where people get this idea from.
Jack Thompson does not campaign for something like this (he lives in a nation where a system like that already exists). He wants something akin to the Comics Code Authority which would severely limit what could be done to earn a stamp of approval (and this is an entirely different beast).
[Edited by Neo7, 3/26/2015 12:51:10 AM]
Thankfully Jack Thompson was disbarred and isn't practicing law anymore.
Also if you've actually studied up your history, you would know that North America's ESRB system does have an AO rating since 1994 and it does give it out to games deserving it since then.
Here's an example of a game that was branded AO:
Link
So not only does a system described in the opening post exist, it has been proven for several years that it does not have this apocalyptic effect of destroying the freedom of expression in video games. I'm not sure where people get this idea from.
Jack Thompson does not campaign for something like this (he lives in a nation where a system like that already exists). He wants something akin to the Comics Code Authority which would severely limit what could be done to earn a stamp of approval (and this is an entirely different beast).
[Edited by Neo7, 3/26/2015 12:51:10 AM]
Thankfully Jack Thompson was disbarred and isn't practicing law anymore.
I too am grateful that Jack Thompson is no longer practicing. Toki, I also think that an Adults Only rating is a good thing. But it will only work if there is effective enforcement and if PARENTS actually know the ratings and use them as they are intended.
I can't speak for the UK, but in the US the main problem is not the rating system, but a lack of education about what the ratings are and mean. For example, if you ask a person what does the movie PG-13 mean, they can give you an answer. On the other hand, if you ask them what and "M" means for a game rating, you would get a blank look.