The headline said it very well.

It's mind-numbingly stupid - so in steps Hillary(but she only happens to be the first).

Though she does address both the violent and the sexual content, it took the latter to get her to speak out.

Indeed, if the hack was some independent person's doing, Rockstar should be left alone. And personally, I don't want my kids seeing sex or violence, but violence is worse. That's why we don't allow any videogames in our home. Good luck, though, to Rockstar. Let's hope the evidence is on its side.

Appearances suggest strongly that in fact the XXX content was there all along. Still, it clearly takes a hack to access it.

But so what? That's sidestepping the issue. Even if Rockstar put it there, why would it be that bad? The whole game seems to be about, as the beloved Monkey Girl puts it, stacking up bodies like cordwood. If that's acceptable entertainment, what's a few minutes with a virtual hooker?

Next edition, Rockstar should just add the sex scenes in directly.

Not allowing any games into your home is pretty weak Natalie. Not all games are GTA, regardless of what the media tells you. There are fantastic titles out there for children.

And great job monkey. I covered the hack last week and I'm glad someone stepped up to cover Clinton's stupidity.

And the body-stacking, that's good times. Let me tell you. Virtual poontang? Booooring. The sweet, sweet sound of a virtual shotgun? Oh yeah.

Yeah, I could never see the point of virtual porn. Does animated sex get people hard?

I'll defend Natalie here, Matt. Even if some games are not specifically promoting bad values of sex or violence in the content, they tend to consume a lot of time and attention and be a less than optimal way for chillen to spend their time. Much better if she takes them out to play ball or hike in the woods, or almost anything but sitting like a lump in front of the tv screen on a beautiful summer day.

Of course, I don't know Natalie or her reasons, but I bet her kids watch movies and TV. I applaud any parent who takes their kids out, but games have such a bad rep, and it's unneccesary. At the very least, they're doing something in the front of a TV when they're playing games, not just sitting there. If I had kids, I would rather have them playing games then watching a flick, but of course being out is for the better.

Everything bad is really good for you

When I was a kid, hot summer days (like 100 degrees hot) were often spent playing marathon Monopoly or Risk with neighborhood kids. Nowadays, kids gravitate to computer games. If I could have had access to Starcraft when I was 10 years old, damn right I would have wanted to play. It's not much different from playing army -- remember the little green army figures?

The difference is whether of not there is another human involved. The human intaraction is valuable. Video games often let a kid tune out for extended periods of time. However, it's not clear that this is a bad thing. It's controversial at the moment. Some "experts" say that some games -- Warcraft, Civilization, and other real-time or turn-based strategy games -- are actually healthy pastimes. Sure, kids should have time at the beach or the park. Balance is important.

I do worry about the first-person shooter games a little. Those are just as mindless -- in a different way, though -- as watching TV, and maybe worse. It's debatable. There is a line that I won't let my son cross. I don't mind much that he's massing armies of spaceships to wipe out an alien infestation -- strategy and long-term planning are required. I will not let him play any game where he's picking off humans with a scope rifle and leveling up because of it. There's a line there somewhere. It's pretty easy to tell about these games by reading reviews prior to purchase.

Thanks for the compliments on the post, folks... always makes a little primate like me feel good.

I'm with Matt here. I'd rather have my (imaginary, future children) playing video games than sitting around watching television, if it were a choice between the two. Video games can be great educational tools - they can help teach logic and reasoning, and hey, it's always nice to have a great reaction time. Whereas most television and movies (and I'll say this even as a huge movie buff) don't really teach or educate much at all, with the exception of specifically educational programming and/or documentaries

Now, the way Natalie said it, I would assume she disallows games due to violence. And there's a real difference between violent games (GTA, Resident Evil, Halo, etc.) and games like, say, Animal Crossing, Civilization (versions 1-394823), Myst and all its spinoffs, and then games suited particularly for children. However, video games are so frequently demonized by the government and the media that it's hard for me to blame anyone for feeling that no video games have any redeeming content.

But, I do absolutely feel that it's a choice that should be left up to the parents, and that the parents should take a more active role in making that choice. During the three years I worked at Blockbuster, I noticed that so many parents didn't seem to care at all what their children rented, movie or game-wise. And if said children were authorized to rent anything, we ended up having to hand 11 year olds XXX BMX and softporn, largely because the parents either didn't care or just couldn't be bothered to pay attention to what their children were bringing home.

Mr. Paprocki, no, my kids don't watch a lot of movies or TV (not at home or at grandma's house, anyway). They read, play sports and outdoors games, take music classes, go to museums and symphony and participate in church/school activities and stuff. And we spend lots of time on schoolwork and enrichment activities. My daughter (16) also has a job. There is too much other, actually worthwhile stuff to do for them to become passive, mindless couch potatoes. And there are board games -- one can play games of strategy that aren't accessible through an electronic device, and those games are often less expensive.

Now, both kids have tried Playstation (at their cousins' houses) and they like it. They aren't thrilled that they can't have their own. But you can't always get what you want and Spousal Unit and I call the shots. By the time they are on their own and paying their own bills, they can buy all the X boxes they want, but I will know that they have lots of other interests that hopefully will be more enticing to them.

(Of course, I am a total spoilsport -- outside of Halloween, Easter, and Christmas, no candy is allowed in my house either. And soda is regulated heavily. When my daughter was little, I made her an Easter basket filled with dried fruits and nuts and such, and my brother surreptitiously added a chocolate bunny to it. Wanker. Whatever, I have loosened up since then. A little.)

My antipathy for video games has to do with my being a pacifist -- violence is not permitted in my home. No water guns or slingshots or light sabres or army men or GI Joes either. Lord knows they probably see enough violence at school. No doubt there are games with redeeming values, and as a family, we have played computer games that are higher toned and often educational in value. (Mah Jongg is a favorite.) But getting an X box or Playstation would open a Pandora's box I would rather avoid. We don't need it. (How weird that I have to defend that...)

Hmm, I'm not sure you have to defend it at all. It's absolutely within your right to raise your children as you'd like. And I think you have good reasons. I rather think it's more of a matter of people being curious as to why rather than telling you that it's bad.

Well, except for the "weak" thing, but y'know, oh well. Your house, your kids, your life, your rules. At least you have a sensible reasoning behind it!

I completely agree with you momkey, but there is something I don't like:

"they can buy all the X boxes they want, but I will know that they have lots of other interests that hopefully will be more enticing to them."

Why hopefully? Why are you deciding what they should enjoy? If they enjoy something, let them. You only get one life. Let them make the choice to play a video game because they enjoy it. That's not wrong. It's not harming them. If they've experienced other things, that's fantastic, but when they're sheltered in a way where they don't have a chance to experience these things, that's when things can get ugly.

People look at video games and they see "bad." They never understand the positives, nor do they want to, because we all know, TV is "bad" in any form. It's a fear some people have. If you're kids are sitting there 10 hours a day, then yes, there's an issue. An occasinal video game, just like the occasional movie, is harmless. It's something the medium needs to erase before it can be accepted. You're the parent. Set the limits. My parents did just that, and if my grades slipped, the power adapter to the consoles was taken away until they went back up. It's that simple.

Observe my fencepost ridin ways.

I partially agree with Matt there. I think kids should be allowed to decide some things for themselves.

But then again, part of being a parent, I guess, is helping to shape your children.

I dunno. I'll know more when I have a couple. :)

Obviously, Natalie is hoping that her kids will grow up to be more serious-minded. That's certainly her right. Instead of looking for the magical amulet in some fantasy world, she wants her kids to be working on their first novel, or writing a letter to Congress, or giving the prize talk at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society. What's wrong with that? And no doubt, her strict pacifist philosophy is anathema to most video games. She would hope that her kids grow up to share that point of view.

So a kid reading a fantasy book doesn't serve the same purpose? At the least child needs to WORK and use their mind to find the amulet, not just read about the adventurer traverses the cavern to get it. And to say a child can't grow up to serious minded if they play video games is absurd and ignorant. I grew up on them, daily as a matter of fact. I'm heading into a carrer, mulitple politicans have my letters (which have fallen on deaf ears), and yet, I still play video games.

It's no different than having them play a board game, which they do. That's where I have a huge problem. She doesn't even stop to think about the board game, but a video game? GASP! Again, it has to do with acceptibility.

Matt, I'm not sure why you're so offended. They're HER kids.

We're also a video-game free home right now. Our kids watch TV, probably too much sometimes. But I have the parental controls set, so I generally know that what they're watching fits their age group [4-6].

We're going to remain a video-game free home for the forseeable future. We do have some educational computer games. In fact, one of them helped my daughter learn to play chess.

If I had to choose, I'd much rather my kids read Harry Potter and try to figure out the mysteries in each book [reading isn't really passive -- it's an act of thinking, prediction, etc. each time out] than play video games. I just would. It's a personal preference.

I guess it comes partially from seeing my husband go through his "Doom stage" a few years ago. I thought it was a complete waste of time when he'd play for a couple of hours in a row. He eventually came to see it that way, too.

Again, it's a matter of personal preference. I don't want anyone else's kids to stop playing the games. I just don't really want mine to start.

Matt, don't get me wrong. I'm actually on your side, here. I have played a lot of computer games. I use that time to flush my mind of my job-related concerns. It helps to do this, because I find that a fresh perspective and a relaxed mind help me make progress. I equate my playing to downtime on the bed with popcorn and a couple of movies. I value that.

Beyond that, some games are more than just downtime. They can be every bit as edifying as a good novel. Some are so close to historical realism that they verge on being educational.

I was just trying to define Natalie's position as I interpret it.

Well said, bhw.

I suspect Mr. Paprocki is offended because he has an unnatural obsession with video games and can't stand that someone disagrees with him.

Since when did video games become necessary?

For the record, Mr. Paprocki, much thought goes into the board games that we have in the house. As previously stated, board games tend to be less expensive than computer ones -- that is a huge consideration in our house. We feel money is better spent on other things. And as I said, my kids certainly have been exposed to video games. They make many decisions for themselves (definitely true for my teenager). But, they are KIDS, and as you said, as parents, SU and I set the limits and we make the rules. One is that we do not want video-game machines in our home. Case closed. You don't accept my reasoning? Then deal with this: We are the parents and what we say goes. (Shut up, Dad.)

Perhaps you might re-read my previous comment, Mr. Paprocki; it's obvious your outrage clouded your view and caused you to miss some things.

And don't worry about my poor, deprived kids: They do just fine, learn a lot, and have fun. They are surrounded by love, are exceedingly well-adjusted, and do very well in social settings. And they don't live in a vacuum by any means.

Oh, and I am not grooming my kids to be serious-minded. I am helping them (or trying to help them) to become the best people they can be, to live fulfilling lives by their own standards, to contribute to the planet, and to be happy as they define it. Again, why are video games a necessary part of that picture?

There are three things here BHW:

1. Video games as "evil." She perfectly accepts board games and movies, the latter in moderation. She could do the same with games.

2. As you said, it's a personal preference, yet you don't know why. I've never understood how reading is educational. Sure, and encyclopedia is, but how many kids sit down daily to read those? They read Harry Potter. I've never understood, and never will, the educational value there. It's simply acknowledged and accepted. As a society, we don't care what kids read, as long as they read. Why not give them a Pokemon game? Tons of reading material there.

3. Not letting kids be kids. Should every kid play video games? Of course not. Some people and children will simply never understand the appeal. However, they have said they enjoy it. You only get to be a child once. Keeping them away from candy is one thing, for health reasons. Keeping them away from what has become a standard part of being a kid is just wrong. That's simply how I feel.

Again, it has to do with acceptability and the way games are percieved. That's where the problem is. If games came before books, we'd be fighting the same battle with the mediums switched. They're new, and certain parents don't understand them. They're literally scared of them, mostly because of the media blasting one single game night in and night out.

You replied before I hit submit, Natalie. =;)

Here we go: Unatural obsession. This is my career path, breaking into the journalism portion. I'm writing something everyday on this industry. Yet, I still have a life outside of them. It's a bad stereotype, one that has yet to be broken. You have visions in your head of your kids sitting there all day looking at a screen.

If I sat down and had an "unatural obession" with books, would that be looked down upon? Of course not. Again, acceptability.

They're not expensive either. You can buy a PS One and some games for less than standard board game costs. It's a fine introduction. If your kids enjoy going outside and participating, fantastic. You're doing a wonderful job.

What if they went out and earned the money for a game system? What do you do then?

Mr. Paprocki, I would re-state the rule: I won't have 'em in my house. Then grab a basketball and take them out to shoot hoops.

Video games are not necessary. And a lot of the things that have become "standard part[s] of being a kid" should not be, IMO; many popular youth pursuits and fads are just hideous. In fact, much of what the mainstream embraces in general is anathema to me. So why follow the crowd? Are you insinuating that my kids should do whatever all the other kids are doing? Sorry, but my kids, my rules. Other parents get to decide for theirs. Do not presume to tell me what items I need to raise my children.

As for expensive, that's relative. You don't know what my family can or can not afford. You certainly don't have a grasp of our priorities, economic or otherwise. We will spend our income in the best way we see fit.

And don't put words in my mouth, Mr. Paprocki: I never called video games "evil."

No, but you did come back with "unaturally obsessed" at me. The thing is, you see them as a waste of time. However, there's very good money to be made and multiple career paths. Anyone can make a fine five-figure salary by designing games, and there's a far better chance of doing that then landing in the NBA. They'll never know that, yet they show they may have a passion for it. I completely understand you don't want them sitting in front of the TV contantly, and you're doing a fine job as a parent in that regard. However, a game system in the home isn't going to cause that either. Again, you're in control.

Books aren't neccesary. Basketballs aren't neccesary. Board games aren't neccesary. None of that is neccesary, yet you have bought them for your children. You, as a parent, see a lot of these things as fads. Should you embrace everything kids do? No, of course not. I repeat again, your children have shown an interest in a video game. If they show an interest in drugs, then you worry. Times change, and new things are introduced to entertain children. Video games have already shown to so much more than a fad.

And of course I don't know your situation finacically. I never claimed to. What I read is that you've bought them board games, and you can get them a nice classic console for the same price.

My father didn't allow any gaming systems in our house growing up, so I missed the whole revolution from Atari through Nintendo 64. It wasn't until I had an Apple IIC that I got to play some games, but at 30K memory, most games weren't too extensive for Apple then.

Fast forward to college and I'm finally able to play Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter against my suitemates, and you know what? I got beat every time. For a competitive person, it was annoying as hell. Sure, I've painted murals, written a novel, had athletic success... but my hand-eye coordination at games is something awful. And there's a self-esteem issue to always lose in a social setting like that. Luckily, I was already modest then, but it can affect other kids a lot worse.

What parents enforce is up to them, but there is something to be said for those systems giving you some damn good hand-eye coordination. I know I was jealous.

..you can get them a nice classic console for the same price.

I volunteer to send Natalie my extra copy of Silent Hill 4. That will change her mind.

What does SH 4 have to do with a classic console? I was thinking a SNES or even a NES.

And my god has this thread took a detour...

Hmm, a couple of things here:

Natalie, I have to say that assuming Matt is "unnaturally obsessed" with video games and couldn't stand to have any disagree with him is rather over the line. He is actually being quite reasonable. You are the one who seems to be harboring a little latent hostility.

We all have issues that we consider important. If Matt is working on a career within the video game industry, then of course he has a vested interest in seeing that industry succeed. It follows then that he would want to try to understand why some people are so anti-gaming. It is the same reaction a writer would have if, say, they were told of a family that didn't allow books.

I respect that you don't think games are a worthwhile pursuit, but if you come here to open a dialogue, it is my thought that you should expect it to be a dialogue, with questions and answers and logical reasoning. That is why I come here. And sliding ad homs into the discussion isn't helping anyone. Yes, Matt "started" it, but has since calmed down and seems quite reasonable.

I think what he's getting at is, "Because I say so" might work for the kids, but we are curious. And since you came here to speak, we're going to ask you why.

Matt -- reading nearly anything is quite educational, by the way. Yes, including Harry Potter. I can confidently say that as a child and teenager, I learned more from all the books I read than I did in school in general. I developed a large vocabulary, quick reasoning skills, and the ability to analyze -- all from reading. Let me give you an example: I remember being about 12 and taking a standardized test. I was asked for the meaning of the word "topography." I knew it, and I knew exactly how, as well. I'd read it in a Nancy Drew novel (certainly not in school). You probably wouldn't think those have any more educational value than, say, Harry Potter, but there you go. Anecdotal evidence.

Video games don't make you violent. I was violent and mean long before I ever picked up a controller! (heh)

Video games don't necessarily become an obsession. Of course, they can, but so can anything. The key, as Matt has said, is moderation, which is another lesson in and of itself.

Video games don't preclude other worthwhile activities. Why, I play a video game nearly every day, and yet I write short stories, am working on a novel, work a full time job as a loan processor, cook for my husband, throw parties for my friends, construct diatribes for my friends here at Blogcritics, and just in general lead what feels like a very full and productive life.

Video games don't make you lazy, nor does playing them mean you're sitting like a lump all the time. A young friend with whom I play Final Fantasy XI online is but a mere 16 years old today(HAPPY BIRTHDAY, KIDDO), and is a dedicated swimmer, attending practices at 5 a.m. even during the summer, and another in the afternoons. Another good friend, a baseball buff, finds that curling up in a chair with a controller after a grueling night at the diamond is the best way he's found to relax.

I know gamers from the age of three all the way through their seventies, and they are (almost all) fantastic individuals.

But guess what?

ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THIS is the issue at hand.

What I came here today to discuss is the fact that violence is apparently a-okay with everyone, but the merest hint of sexual content gets everyone's panties in a twist, which seems to be the precise opposite of the opinion of most of the rest of the civilized world.

Do you get it? I don't.

OK, I'll throw in a PS 2 at the same time. Man, you drive a hard bargain.

Mr. Sahm, if my kids will miss something in the hand-eye coordination arena (which I doubt), it's a risk I am willing to take. And if they ultimately resent me for the decision, I can live with that.

Thank you, Mr. Duane, but no thanks.

Indeed, Mr. Paprocki, the conversation has detoured, so let's try to get it back to the subject: I saw a news report featuring Hillary Rodham speaking of the problem of explicit and violent video games being available to young people. I had to laugh -- if shielding kids from violence was so damned important to her, she would have spoken out against them years ago.

Personally, I can deal with a ratings system, but leave parents to make decisions for their kids themselves. It is not n ecessary for the government to stick its nose into the matter.

I gotta say Natalie, for as much as I disagree with you on a certain other topic, you're one of the few, so very few, to understand a parents responsibility and the lack of government regulation. Kudos for understanding that.

I am an independent thinker.

Matt:

2. As you said, it's a personal preference, yet you don't know why.

Yes, I do know why. The one specific reason I gave was that my husband has declared that he had wasted a lot of time playing Doom.

I also said that I prefer that my kids read because reading isn't passive, as you suggested in one of your comments when you said, "At the least child needs to WORK and use their mind to find the amulet, not just read about the adventurer traverses the cavern to get it." The mind WORKS when we read, arguably far harder than it does while playing a game. For one thing, the mind must imagine that which it can't see. Worlds are created with words, not flashing images and sounds. That means the reader has to supply the missing pieces. For another, readers actively anticipate or predict plot twists all the time.

I've never understood how reading is educational.

You're kidding, right?

Sure, and encyclopedia is, but how many kids sit down daily to read those? They read Harry Potter. I've never understood, and never will, the educational value there.

My husband has read all the Harry Potter books to our 6-year-old daughter. She can't read them herself yet, so she's spent the last two years sitting on my husband's lap listening to him read those stories to her. Over that time, she has learned a hell of a lot about complex stories, characters, England, boarding schools, imagination, friendship, trust, good v. evil, etc., etc. And she's learned a bunch of new vocabulary.

She just finished kindergarten. During the first part of the year, the class learned two new letters each week. As the teacher introduced each week's new letters, she asked the children to give examples of words that begin with those letters. When they got to the letter U, most of the kids tossed out "umbrella." My daugther raised her hand and said, "umbrage."

That's because one of the characters in Harry Potter is named Professor Umbrage. And my daughter was even able to give a basic definition of the word, because my husband had taken the time to explain how the character's name fit her personality.

Just one of the many ways Harry Potter is educational and a fun read for kids and adults.

As a society, we don't care what kids read, as long as they read. Why not give them a Pokemon game? Tons of reading material there.

True enough. My husband grew up reading comic books and science fiction, not to mention lots of mythology and other classics. Basically, the whole gamut. [I have two English degrees, and he has read a hell of a lot more than I have.] Kids learn from everything that they do, even video games. They certainly get some opportunities for social skils development beyond whatever content the game might offer. So I'm not saying that they don't or won't learn from video games. I'm saying that for my kids, other activities are better.

3. Not letting kids be kids.

Oh come on! That's just nonsense. My kids and I spent the better part of today swimming at a nearby lake. Then we stopped at a store and picked up a tent so that we can camp in our backyard this weekend. They had a great day, and so did I.

Why do they need video games to be kids, when they have so many other things available to them?


Should every kid play video games? Of course not. Some people and children will simply never understand the appeal. However, they have said they enjoy it. You only get to be a child once. Keeping them away from candy is one thing, for health reasons. Keeping them away from what has become a standard part of being a kid is just wrong. That's simply how I feel.

It's not wrong to keep your children away from a form of entertainment that you think is a waste of time. And it's not wrong to decide that your kids don't have to do something just because everyone else lets their kids do it.

... my husband has declared that he had wasted a lot of time playing Doom.

I'd bet your husband would also admit being entertained too. Nothing wrong with that. If you watch a lot of movies, do you stop watching? Again, control.

The mind WORKS when we read, arguably far harder than it does while playing a game. For one thing, the mind must imagine that which it can't see... That means the reader has to supply the missing pieces. For another, readers actively anticipate or predict plot twists all the time.

And I would argue, that certain games, mostly RPGs and adventure types, work the mind just as hard. Imagination isn't neccesarily educational. Of course, games have plot twists all over the place, and in the course of a deeply involved game, you have countless characters to keep track of over a much longer period of time.

characters, England, boarding schools, imagination, friendship, trust, good v. evil, etc., etc. And she's learned a bunch of new vocabulary.

And it not possible to learn every bit of that, minus the vocab, watching the films or playing the games?

Oh come on! That's just nonsense. My kids and I spent the better part of today swimming at a nearby lake. Then we stopped at a store and picked up a tent so that we can camp in our backyard this weekend. They had a great day, and so did I.

Why do they need video games to be kids, when they have so many other things available to them?

Again, they don't need them, but when they show interest, and when a parent has control like they should, there's no reason to fear putting a console in the home.

It's not wrong to keep your children away from a form of entertainment that you think is a waste of time.

What forms of entertainment do you allow?

How's this for a thread discussion turn?

I believe the entire "Grand Theft Auto" series is an overrated and pointless video game.

Discuss.

I hate GTA as well. It's awful at everything it does, from 3rd person shooting to driving. It's the novelty of being to do everything and the "shock" factor made stronger by Clinton types. In a few years, we'll look back and laugh by just how heniuous it is to play.

My husband, who is standing here, is shaking his head no. He says it's like reading a comic book with 4 pages again and again and again.

To us, it's not as entertaining as watching a movie, at least a good one.

And I would argue, that certain games, mostly RPGs and adventure types, work the mind just as hard. Imagination isn't neccesarily educational.

It's not that everything has to be educational, per se. Anything that stimulates the imagination and causes someone to think is good for the brain. Repeatedly killing fake monsters is just candy. [Quoting my husband.]

We're all for pure entertainment -- not everything needs a higher purpose. We just choose for it not to be that form of entertainment.

Also, as others have pointed out, you don't need computers or video consoles to play RPGs.

And it not possible to learn every bit of that, minus the vocab, watching the films or playing the games?

It's a matter of priorities. I prefer books and films over the games, by a longshot.

Again, they don't need them, but when they show interest, and when a parent has control like they should, there's no reason to fear putting a console in the home.

There's no fear here. We've just made a choice about what we think is best for our kids in the long run. [Remember, they're still very young.] Some people don't get cable tv. Some people don't let their kids watch tv at all. I would rather my kids do their role playing, imagining, socializing, learning, etc., etc., without video games. If they to to someone else's house and they have a console, my kids can play. But we don't plan to have one in our house.

What forms of entertainment do you allow?

Books, tv, movies, playing inside or out, bike riding/roller-blading/etc., sports, educational computer games [Reader Rabbit, etc.], etc. Normal stuff.

My husband, who is standing here, is shaking his head no.

Why would he continually play it then? You don't keep doing something you dislike unlike you need to.

Repeatedly killing fake monsters is just candy.

And not all games are like that.

Books, tv, movies, playing inside or out, bike riding/roller-blading/etc., sports, educational computer games [Reader Rabbit, etc.], etc. Normal stuff.

See, this is where I become annoyed. Forgive me if I sound like an ass, but what's the differnce if your kids play a game or watch a movie? You say normal stuff. Why are video games not normal? Again, I go back to acceptance. Video games are simply not there yet, but they should be. It happened to comics, it happned to Dungeons and Dragons, it happened to Heavy Metal, etc.

Maybe it's a generational thing, but if that was the case, then games wouldn't be where they were right now. A lot of parents have trouble accepting what their kids do. My parents failed to see the fascination with pressing buttons to make things move on a TV. However, they accepted it.

There was an entire discussion on Digital Press (site I write for) on what age should a kid get a game system. Of course, these are hardcore collectors. They mostly agreed that 5 was a good point. If their children didn't like it, so be it. If they did, it's a great way to introduce them to a hobby. And to sound like a broken record, let the kid try. There's no harm in that. Not letting them experience things is just wrong in my eyes, at least as far as harmelss things go.

Why would he continually play it then? You don't keep doing something you dislike unlike you need to.

He did it for a while and then realized it was a complete waste of his time, that there were other things he thought were a better use of his time.

Why are you arguing about whether or not someone else finds games worthwhile? Some people do and some don't. You can't seem to accept that someone doesn't value what you value.

And not all games are like that.

True enough. And yet so many of them are.

Forgive me if I sound like an ass, but what's the differnce if your kids play a game or watch a movie?

Because we think that the movies we let them watch have more redeeming qualities than the available video games do.

You say normal stuff. Why are video games not normal?

I used the word normal to show that we're not cloistered or something. Video games are normal enough these.

There was an entire discussion on Digital Press (site I write for) on what age should a kid get a game system. Of course, these are hardcore collectors. They mostly agreed that 5 was a good point.

To me, that's a silly age to get a game console for a kid. Way too young.

And to sound like a broken record, let the kid try. There's no harm in that.

My kids have played video games at other people's houses. They *have* tried. They just aren't getting a console in our house.

Not letting them experience things is just wrong in my eyes, at least as far as harmelss things go.

That's baloney. It isn't wrong for parents to decide what's best for their own children, particularly when it comes to the overly aggressive, over-stimulating forms of entertainment that these big companies are pushing on young children. I prefer that my kids find other ways to spend their energies, and there's nothing wrong with that decision. You're forgetting that we're basing our decision in part on my husband's own experience with games (as well as his experience with friends who play video games).

Why is it so important to you that all parents let their kids play video games? Why are you so against the idea that some parents choose something else for their kids?

It should absolutely be up to the parents, in my opinion. Which is part of why I think the original topic (hey, guys, remember that?) is so silly. That's what parents do. Games aren't necessary.

Will I let my kids play video games? Well, absolutely. Do I think it should be... a universal right? Well, no. I do, however, think it is difficult on children when they can't do or have what their friends do or have if they can't understand the reasoning behind it, but that's an entirely different story. Anything that makes a child stand out is hard for them to deal with. Unless, of course, there is a lot of good communication in the family. But even considering that, it's still up to the parents.

So, uh, how about that whole sex = evil, violence = acceptable, Puritan thing we have going on?

What is it with Matt? I applaud Natalie and bhw for doing what parents are supposed to do - parent!

As for this notion that kids should have a console, when did having a console become a basic human right? I got my first (and only) console just before I turned 30, which was the first time in my life I could afford one. My parents never had that kind of money (over R2000 for a gift for a kid, that was grocery money for a month or three).

But getting back to the topic - why are Americans so afraid of sex? It is a natural part of life and were it not for sex most of them would not exist. Same goes for nudity, what is the big deal?

A possible solution might be for the whole rating system to be redefined. Making something Adults Only seems to have far more serious implications then something rated No Under 18 (which, if I've understood correctly, mean the same thing over there). Really it's only semantics but it seems to make a huge difference in perception.

Here in South Africa our ratings work like that. We used to have a No Under 21 rating but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. The last time a movie was rated NU21 was for "Basic Instinct" and a lot of people were puzzled over this as there were women who were 19 and 20 not being allowed to watch this movie even though they were married (and some even had kids). In light of that NU21 seemed a bit silly.

Now the toughest restriction you get is No Under 18 and that seems just fine. Here 18 year olds can drive, vote, purchase alcohol, be prosecuted as adults etc so stopping them from seeing a bit of sex and / or nudity seems pointless.

Just my 2c.

So, uh, how about that whole sex = evil, violence = acceptable, Puritan thing we have going on?

Well, this is the US. We've never completely let go of our puritanical past.

I can't explain why animated sex is considered worse for teenagers to watch, passively, than animated violence is to actively partake in.

The sex/violence double standard exists in movies, too. I wouldn't expect it to go away any time soon.

We have a PSOne in our house, with three games: Crash Team Racing, Bob the Builder, and Pooh's Party Games. My kids are 7, 6, and 4.

There *are* things they've learned from the video games. And every single one of them could have easily been learned on a basketball court or baseball diamond. We have the equipment for both of those as well.

Natalie, I doubt you need any more encouragement than this, but be aware that even "safe" kids games, like Crash Team Racing (which is a go-kart racing game) have a "Battle" mode and involve bombs and missles and such. Nobody ever dies, but not for lack of violence. They ways to win the race are to be fast than everybody else, or to knock them out for a few seconds to pull ahead. Only the Pooh and Bob the Builder games are as safe as you would likely want them to be, and they don't teach as much as some good puzzles and boards games.

All of that said, I was raised by fundamentalists, so I tend to overreacted by granting liberty, so I play CTR with my kids often. We hadn't played in almost a year up until last week, so we've been playing almost every night for a while. It helps that it's too hot for me to get out and play basketball with them. They're okay, but I sweat more.

My seven-year old occasionally beats me, racing around the track. My six year old often comes in first playing against PSOne players. And my four-year-old came in first place for the first time last night. I'm so proud!

He did it for a while and then realized it was a complete waste of his time,

So is watching a movie, so is watching TV, so is reading a fiction novel. It's entertainment. It's all a waste of time, and one is no worse than the other. And to sound like a broken record, it's about acceptability.

Because we think that the movies we let them watch have more redeeming qualities than the available video games do.

See, you THINK, and you're wrong. As Phil said, there are some wonderful games out there. Even something along the lines of a Leapster or a Sega Pico would work. There is a plethora of educational software available.

To me, that's a silly age to get a game console for a kid. Way too young.

Is it too young to watch a movie?

when it comes to the overly aggressive, over-stimulating forms of entertainment that these big companies are pushing on young children

AH! There we go. It's the stereotype. See, most of you are looking at me like "OMG! What is with him!." Here's the reason:

That's how people see them.

It's a stereotype that needs to be fought against. It's due to the media blasting them each and every night on the nightly news, without recognizing all the things they do right, how they can make an impact on somones life (excluding the occasional story on how Dance Dance Revolution is helping kids lose weight) and how they are no different than two other forms of entertainment: movies and books.

Why is it so important to you that all parents let their kids play video games? Why are you so against the idea that some parents choose something else for their kids?

I believe it's important to nurture something your child(ren) have an interest in. You never know what that's going to lead to. It could be a small source of entertainment or it could be something they find their career path in. If your kids had played them and said "I don't like these," hey, fantastic. They have other interests and I completely accept that. Ignoring them yet accepting other forms of entertainment is hypocritical.

I applaud Natalie and bhw for doing what parents are supposed to do - parent!


I agree 100% and I've said that multiple times.

So, here is what I'm going to do to save our Legendary guy up there some grief...

Later today I will have a op ed up on WHY a game system should be in the house. I will respond to most of the comments made here, slightly more fleshed out. We can go from there if you wish. Sorry for complain jacking your thread.

'Sall good, hijacking is good, since apparently the answer to the real question in my post is "well, yes, we're silly, sorry."

Which I do think is the case.

So is watching a movie, so is watching TV, so is reading a fiction novel.

Not to me. It all depends on your filter for those things, as it does for video games. I just don't see enough value in enough video games to pay the money to have them in my house. I do see the value in enough movies, both for the adults and kids, to have a DVD player in the house.

It's entertainment. It's all a waste of time, and one is no worse than the other.

Again, not to me. Entertainment isn't necessarily a waste of time. It depends upon the type of entertainment, and each person's tastes are his/her own.

See, you THINK, and you're wrong.

Now that's just hilarious. I have an opinion -- one based on experience -- that differs from yours about video games and their value. I can't be wrong. And you'll have to forgive me if I consider the opinion of the man I have known for almost 20 years, have been married to for 13, and am raising my children with over yours.

As Phil said, there are some wonderful games out there. Even something along the lines of a Leapster or a Sega Pico would work. There is a plethora of educational software available.

I've already said that we have educational computer games, like Reader Rabbit and a game that teaches chess. We just don't have a video game console and we don't plan to get one. There's no reason to purchase yet another electronic device, especially when it has only one use. My daughter is already using the computer to write letters and find information -- she knows how to google! So to us, the computer is all we need. As we see more educational games that we like, we'll get them for the PC.

Is it too young to watch a movie?

Depends on the movie. I'm sure you'll respond that it also depends upon the game. But my point is partially that the console is an investment that I wouldn't make for a five-year old. My husband and I have no interest in playing video games, so the console would be just for the kids. Too much money for something that we value so little.

>when it comes to the overly >aggressive, over-stimulating forms of >entertainment that these big companies >are pushing on young children

AH! There we go. It's the stereotype. See, most of you are looking at me like "OMG! What is with him!." Here's the reason:

That's how people see them.

Again, it's not just a stereotype; it's my opinion based on experience, including experience with educational computer games, tv, and movies targeted at kids. They're loud and obnoxious most of the time, and they don't need to be. Ever watch Nickelodeon? It's loud and overstimulating for no reason. So we're limiting the exposure to those things in our house by limiting TV and movie time and by not getting a gaming system. The computer games we do have and the movies and tv we do let them watch are plenty.

It's a stereotype that needs to be fought against. It's due to the media blasting them each and every night on the nightly news, without recognizing all the things they do right,

No. It's based on my personal experience. Even Sesame St. is now getting wacky with some of the special effects. It's annoying.

I believe it's important to nurture something your child(ren) have an interest in. You never know what that's going to lead to. It could be a small source of entertainment or it could be something they find their career path in.

Very true. I nurture my children's interests all the time. But I also draw the line at the things they can do, and the reasons vary. Sometimes it's a cost issue, like when my daughter said she wanted horseback riding lessons. Too expensive for our budget. So is skiing. So is hockey. Am I worried that my kids might have been all-star athletes in those sports if not for my refusal to pay more for something than I can afford? Nope.

My main focus for my kids is their overall emotional and physical well being and their education. Entertainment and down time are very important to their overall well being, but I don't need video games to be a part of the entertainment piece.

If your kids had played them and said "I don't like these," hey, fantastic. They have other interests and I completely accept that. Ignoring them yet accepting other forms of entertainment is hypocritical.

Not it's not. It's a choice based on what I value. I've tried to explain why I place a higher value on some things than others. And it's ridiculous to suggest that parents should jump and respond to every whim of their children. They've tried video games at other people's homes. They like them. But we're still not getting a console for our house.

Later today I will have a op ed up on WHY a game system should be in the house.

And this is why your argument doesn't hold water with me or lots of other parents: you're trying to tell us that we SHOULD have a console in our homes. They're OUR homes -- who are you to say what we should our shouldn't have? I wouldn't tell another family that they should have a DVD player. Maybe that family shouldn't. Why SHOULD all families have these items in our homes? Why SHOULD I spend a couple of hundrded dollars on something I don't value? Why are these thing so damned important? You've said that video games aren't necessary, but you insist that we should have them in our homes anyway.

You know what might be fun? For you and me do to a pro/con piece together, although I wouldn't do so much of a con as an explanation of why I've chosen what I've chosen. Let me know if you're interested.

BHW, that would be brillaint. It would let both sides be in the same piece. Maybe we could do it over AIM. E-mail would be awfully clunky. Do you have a screen name? We can set up a time. I can edit for spelling and such if you want before posting, it's no big deal. Drop me an e-mail so we can get out of this thread and hopefully get back to the topic at hand...

videogamer@bex.net

Oh, wait... Um, Matt? Not a Legendary guy, but a Legendary gal. :)

Further, yes! You two do a piece together. That would be great.

Let the games begin!

Now let's get back to boobies and bombs on this thread....

I'm game.

lol Rodney! You do have a boobie radar, don't you? ;-)

bhw --

Well, yes, as a matter of fact, I do; you know if there's one thing evolutionary theory has proved it's that, contrary to common belief, tits are less for infant nurturance than they are for playing telephone with -- wait, we've discussed this, haven't we?

Rings a bell....

Update: The code is on the retail copy, though it does require a cheat device.

Still shouldn't change anything. The game is still approproiately rated, and no kid should have this in their hands.