Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 21 Jun 2011.
I look forward to more, Hail to the King baby!!
The single player side was a let-down but i'm liking the multiplayer
I'm sorry, but what is this guy on?! Just because you slap a (probably legally required) "Contains Mature Content" warning on your advertising does not mean it isn't aimed at kids. DNF is 18 rated but given its themes the game is patently designed with puerile 15 year old boys in mind, and advertising slogans like "Duke Nukem Forever has bazookas... Both kinds!" with pictures of provocatively dressed women only reinforces that. Don't get me wrong, I'm no censoring zealot, in fact I think regulation generally goes too far against the advertiser (another example of the nanny state stifling the free market economy by kowtowing to the knee-jerk demands of people who refuse to take personal responsibility for parenting their offspring), but this guy needs to own up to the reality that the key demographic for his product is teenage boys who are too young to purchase it.
Puerile content != Aimed at children. Failed argument.
Made me LOL
15 too young for red dead? Seriously?
I played gta 3 at 12, so im hardcore then.
The games certificate 18. If the game appeals to kids and they are able to buy it, then surely the problem is with how they obtain it.
The only adverts I've seen on television have been late evening >9pm so in that respect I believe that they have been very responsible in their marketing. As for the reviews and screen shots and reviews shown on sites, well short of having an adult only review site, that's impractical.
.... most kids will probably be able to tell you where to get the best/better pr0n from, so let's not blow this out of context. It's a game, and it's got a funny adult theme. It's a game, it's a bit of fun. Maybe the question should be what are parents doing to stop little Johnny or Emily seeing/playing this as opposed to blaming the advertisers.
Kids are a blessing, and they are the responsibility of their parents:
Emotionally, fiscally and legally
...until they become adults.
It's time that started to be taken on-board by more parents rather than them always blaming someone else for how their kids are turning out.
Why does it seem that these days it's just easier to have a scapegoat for being a terrible parent instead of taking the time to raise your children properly.
No your not, your parents are just faliures!
Sorry but my kids dont watch/play anything that is not suitable.
Anyway i dont remember seeing any adverts aimed at children/teens
It's not like he could actually come out and say "yes, this game is aimed at 15 year old boys despite it's content warning" even if he thought it was a good idea.
Pretty much professional suicide if he did that.
Besides, telling teenage boys "you cant have this game because you're too young" is only going to make them want it more.
My parents just asked me if I could tell the difference between reality and the movies and games I was playing. I think it was right after I beat Vice City and I must've been 10-12 at the time. Of course I could tell the difference. I think we need to give kids a little more credit sometimes. Seems like a lot of adults can get riled up over just about anything involving their children and never ask the kids what choices they would like to make.
It doesn't matter who the game is marketed to, it's got a mature rating so legally 2k is fine.
sorry yeah reading it back it want the smartest phrase, so i appologise it wasnt ment to be offensive (ment in a jokey way).
And i do agree that parents should try/watch material before letting their kids play/watch because not all children are the same. Having said that, i couldnt let my children watch/play an 18 until they themselves are in their teens and have a good grasp on right/wrong etc.
I know all too well whats its like to be 16 and my mam not allowing me to get certain game for christmas, best thing was my dad got it and let me play it with him, after we talked about it, i honestly think thats the best way.
What a ridiculous thing to say
I would certainly say that Duke is inappropriate for a ten year old. Fifteen? Probably. Those are formative years for how they see women.
Hell, the new Duke isn't fit for human consumption.
I'm a parent, and I already control what Snort sees at 5 and a half months-we watch Baby Einstein, or nothing with him. Regular TV is not only offensive, it's not available where we live, and we're not gonna pay for trash to be piped to our house.
When he's old enough to make choices, that's different, but then again, I wouldn't let him choose DNF for himself. I am his parent, and responsible for his successful integration into society. I wish more people would remember that last part.
Its not toilet humour....
Hear, play with this poo!!!! Isn't this fun.
Slightly deluded I think.
To be frank with you, you have no way of "guaranteeing" how it affected him. You don't know him, and you can't make any assumptions about how GTA has changed him, if at all.
Perhaps all this childhood-destroying computer violence passed me by because I didn't start playing games until I was 11 and I received my first computer, an Amiga (see signature below). For those who are too young for the Amiga, the...um...game "sharing" scene around the Amiga was very big (I would argue far bigger than it is now on PC, and I have the large box full of 3.5" floppies to prove it).
We would "share" discs at school, and was the main way for children without disposable incomes to be able to play the games. This also had the effect that parents had little idea of what we were playing, aided in no small part by lack of parental awareness of computer games and a more restrained tabloid media that didn't exaggerate "dangers" for effect.
Games were not as realistic as they are now, but I have no doubt that I played a lot of games that were unsuitable for my age (including pre-Internet hard-core pornography, my first exposure to such. Yes, you could get porn for the Amiga!). The result is that I am still the same person I was before the Amiga came into my life, just older (and arguably more mature).
I don't pretend that my experience is indicative of everyone's experience. But I would argue that often video games are blamed for initiating disturbed behaviour when it is FAR more likely that disturbed behaviour is the result of childhood trauma suffered in real life and not pixelated on a screen. I quite often see children being screamed at in carparks, supermarkets, etc, and I'm sure these people think they are good parents. When little Johnny later starts torturing animals and hating women I'm sure it will be the video games (which the parents no doubt bought themselves, along with the violent DVDs) that will be blamed and not the stream of vulgar and personalised invective directed at them.
(I should point out that I have no problem a parent raising their voice to chastise a child for misbehaviour. Even a well timed smack on the backside with a palm is super effective when appropriate. They worked with me on the rare occasion I received one. I do object when the chastisement is verbal abuse, when the language is, as I said, vulgar and personal. Example I have heard: "Shut ya f**kin mouth ya little c**t!". That is not a child that is going to grow up mentally healthy.)
If a child views adult content it doesn't automatically follow that the child has been damaged. I am not a parent, but when/if I do I will monitor computer use. Casually, and not in authoritarian police state way (precautions like router access controls and OpenDNS are options). Not because I think it will turn them into disturbed people, but because it is the sensible thing to do. I'm going to try and not turn their lives into a paranoid little cocoon because it is physically impossible to keep all adult content from them. I will also try to be open about talking to them about sex and other adult content no matter how uncomfortable I may feel. It is secrecy that breeds dysfunction and danger. Note the "try" there, because I imagine it is hard to be this kind of parent.
We seem to think that the Internet means we can no longer protect children, when I would argue that children in modern, prosperous, western democracies have never been more protected (unless they were a character in a Jane Austen novel). Just as we find new ways to worry about our health, when we have never been healthier, we just find new ways of worrying about our children.
All this is getting beside the point, which was that DNF was being marketed at children. The general humour of the game has a crude, adolescent quality. This is apparent in the marketing of the game - it is unavoidable because...you know...it is the game! People who complain about it obviously have never played DN games, because they were all like that. It is just noticeable now because games have moved on and the age of DNF is showing badly.
TL;DR? Dot points for the attention-span deficient PowerPoint generation (it has been proven. Look it up.):
* Adult-themed content does not necessarily damage children.
* A personal example that proves nothing.
* Parents more likely to damage children, not the Duke. He said so.
* Impossible to prevent exposure to adult content, so be prepared to talk about it.
* Children are already well protected without exposing them to a domestic Orwellian nightmare.
* DNF is what DN does. Hail to the king, baby!
You should write articles full time!
The treatment of children by their parents that I've witnessed is appalling of late, I've seen children exposed to drug culture, offensive lyrics, domestic violence and encouraged at an early age to glorify crime.
Most children however have access to the internet in some form, where they experience purile and degrading material on demand - and from what I remember of my teen years they demand a lot of it - free of censorship and parental guidance (if they even give a toss).
This is just another attempt of the tabloid media to inflame and provide scapegoats in a politically correct way instead of saying what most of the country thinks:
"You and you alone as a parent are responsible for your child, their actions, interactions and behavior. Stop being such a douche and try to be a better parent"
My parents used to quiz me on the games I played, the people I interacted with, the sites I visited - in a non authoritarian way - but never once enforced censorship, trusting that I can make decisions for myself. If I slipped up and visited some nasty websites, they'd bring it up - let me know it's not right to view that stuff and let me on my merry way.
Why don't they poke fingers at things like South Park, Happy Tree Friends, and other such animated adult oriented content? These are more freely available than a game with an M rating - hell, Comedy Central were advertising South Park pre-9pm.
Separate names with a comma.