Black Ops is ok, but RDR isn't?!

[DanielDeFig]

Well, here's kind of what I'm thinking. Not to defend her, but just looking at potential logic here... Black Ops is a FPS. I'm thinking a lot of non gamers are still remembering the happy days of Golden Eye. Although there was violence, really, it was a game for all ages (let's say 10+). Well, obviously things have changed but parents generally aren't going to be fully informed. She probably thinks it's the same thing as always but with better graphics.

Thing is, she's mostly right I'd say. Yeah there's more blood and some swear words but there's nothing like scenes from BioShock, as an example of a mature FPS.

RDR tho is definitely more mature. You're not going to see a prostitute get stabbed to death by a drunkard in Black Ops, for example. Just in general I think there's more mature decisions to be made as well throughout the game. Black Ops is very straight forward. Good guys, bad guys, here's a gun go shoot them and get through the level. You don't really think about it much. RDR offers a lot of time to think. You also have the opportunity to do whatever you want (to a limited extent) such as murdering innocent people. You could wipe a whole town out. It's pretty human to think bad guys are ok to kill (although if you've been reading Shamus Plays Warcraft, that last one has some hilarious dialogue that turns the tables) but to give the player freedom to kill anyone seems to be a more mature and scary thing for parents to let their kids partake in.

This is a logically argued and reasoned argument as to why RDR is a more mature game than Black OPS, and i applaud you for that.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that this mother is thinking in this way, considering that she let the 11-year old play Black OPS (Which is less mature, but still not age appropriate for the child).Like you said, she probably isn't very well informed, and is probably unaware that Black OPS frames its narrative through flashbacks in a torture chamber.

Neither of these two games are something i'd give for an 11 year old to play.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Well, here's kind of what I'm thinking. Not to defend her, but just looking at potential logic here... Black Ops is a FPS. I'm thinking a lot of non gamers are still remembering the happy days of Golden Eye. Although there was violence, really, it was a game for all ages (let's say 10+). Well, obviously things have changed but parents generally aren't going to be fully informed. She probably thinks it's the same thing as always but with better graphics.

Thing is, she's mostly right I'd say. Yeah there's more blood and some swear words but there's nothing like scenes from BioShock, as an example of a mature FPS.

RDR tho is definitely more mature. You're not going to see a prostitute get stabbed to death by a drunkard in Black Ops, for example. Just in general I think there's more mature decisions to be made as well throughout the game. Black Ops is very straight forward. Good guys, bad guys, here's a gun go shoot them and get through the level. You don't really think about it much. RDR offers a lot of time to think. You also have the opportunity to do whatever you want (to a limited extent) such as murdering innocent people. You could wipe a whole town out. It's pretty human to think bad guys are ok to kill (although if you've been reading Shamus Plays Warcraft, that last one has some hilarious dialogue that turns the tables) but to give the player freedom to kill anyone seems to be a more mature and scary thing for parents to let their kids partake in.

This is a logically argued and reasoned argument as to why RDR is a more mature game than Black OPS, and i applaud you for that.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that this mother is thinking in this way, considering that she let the 11-year old play Black OPS (Which is less mature, but still not age appropriate for the child).Like you said, she probably isn't very well informed, and is probably unaware that Black OPS frames its narrative through flashbacks in a torture chamber.

Neither of these two games are something i'd give for an 11 year old to play.

eh but haven't you heard?

kids dont play campaigns.. its all about the multiplayer

(i know plenty of my cousins who dont even hit the start button on campaign.)

so thats out of the question almost, hell i garuntee 75% at least of underage kids who play that game dont know about those parts.

 

[no oneder]

maby she thought it was not appropriate because you play a criminal in RDR while in black ops you play a solider and maby she believed that it was a good impression. or perhaps she herd it was by rockstar and based on that decided her child should not play it.

either way the child should not be aloud either

Cowboys aren't criminals. Cowboys. Criminals. Battlestar Galactica

 

[DanielDeFig]

Well, here's kind of what I'm thinking. Not to defend her, but just looking at potential logic here... Black Ops is a FPS. I'm thinking a lot of non gamers are still remembering the happy days of Golden Eye. Although there was violence, really, it was a game for all ages (let's say 10+). Well, obviously things have changed but parents generally aren't going to be fully informed. She probably thinks it's the same thing as always but with better graphics.

Thing is, she's mostly right I'd say. Yeah there's more blood and some swear words but there's nothing like scenes from BioShock, as an example of a mature FPS.

RDR tho is definitely more mature. You're not going to see a prostitute get stabbed to death by a drunkard in Black Ops, for example. Just in general I think there's more mature decisions to be made as well throughout the game. Black Ops is very straight forward. Good guys, bad guys, here's a gun go shoot them and get through the level. You don't really think about it much. RDR offers a lot of time to think. You also have the opportunity to do whatever you want (to a limited extent) such as murdering innocent people. You could wipe a whole town out. It's pretty human to think bad guys are ok to kill (although if you've been reading Shamus Plays Warcraft, that last one has some hilarious dialogue that turns the tables) but to give the player freedom to kill anyone seems to be a more mature and scary thing for parents to let their kids partake in.

This is a logically argued and reasoned argument as to why RDR is a more mature game than Black OPS, and i applaud you for that.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that this mother is thinking in this way, considering that she let the 11-year old play Black OPS (Which is less mature, but still not age appropriate for the child).Like you said, she probably isn't very well informed, and is probably unaware that Black OPS frames its narrative through flashbacks in a torture chamber.

Neither of these two games are something i'd give for an 11 year old to play.

eh but haven't you heard?

kids dont play campaigns.. its all about the multiplayer

(i know plenty of my cousins who dont even hit the start button on campaign.)

so thats out of the question almost, hell i garuntee 75% at least of underage kids who play that game dont know about those parts.

Is THAT why XBOX Live is supposed to be chock-full of abusive, swearing every other word in the mic, sexually and racially offensive players? Because they are under 13 and don't know what they are saying?
Now i don't just feel sorry for every decent person who might find themselves there, but also a bit for the ones causing the abuse (providing they are under 13, and have no clue what it is they are really saying), They just want to be like the cool older kids.

 

[Jordi]

Really? The store clerk can get in trouble for selling a game to an adult who happens to have a kid with them? Although it seems kind of obvious that the kid is the one who's going to be playing it, how can anyone prove that?

Yes. In the UK, a sales assistant who sells a video game or DVD to someone of the incorrect age can face immediate dismissal or severe disciplinary action, up to six months in prison, a £5,000 fine (note: the company does not pay the fine. The individual does.) and a criminal record. If it's a part of a Trading Standard's sting (I.E., a child is sent in all dolled up as an adult by TS to see if we will serve them), said sales assistant is arrested on-sight and lead away in handcuffs. It happened in one of our shops, and I pretty much think it's sickening.

Wow! That seems pretty ridiculous! You can actually be sent to prison for committing such a minor "crime"?

GAME rely on the stupidity of parents to make their money. There's no other explanation that doesn't involve satan as to how they remain in business.

I was in a q once behind a similar pair; middle aged non-gamer mother and underage sprog being served an age inappropriate game. The sales assistant was happy to serve them and even had to acknowledge that she couldn't give the child the game, but had to give it to the mother.

Part of me really wishes i'd said something, but of course it wouldn't have made a difference and i'd have just looked like a cock for doing so, which I think is sad. The really dumb part is that, by law, the stupid mare could well have been fined several thousand pound directly and lost her job. But i guess in this day and age it's again easier not to give a shit (not even when the next, inevitable, violent video game story crawls onto our screens). Oh well.

Really? The store clerk can get in trouble for selling a game to an adult who happens to have a kid with them? Although it seems kind of obvious that the kid is the one who's going to be playing it, how can anyone prove that? It is also my personal stance that parents should have a far bigger say in this matter than a game rating advisory board. If something gets a rating of 18+, it doesn't mean that it is completely unsuitable for anyone under 18 (if it did, that'd actually be kind of risky, since a lot of 18-year-olds are more mature than a lot of 19 and 20-year olds). And the #1 people to decide whether something is suitable for a child, are his/her parents.
IMO, ideally the clerk would have pointed out the age rating to the woman, and explained why it might be bad to buy it for her kid. And after that it should have totally been the mother's decision. Anyway, that's what I think.

It would be a for a court to decide ultimately. But if you're stupid enough to tacitly admit you are supplying a minor with an 18 rated product (doesn't matter if its a game) by saying 'i can't give this to him' then tough shit if you lose your job. The game is rated for good reason. We can argue about the relative merits of some under age kids over others as to their maturity, life doesn't work that way and so there have to be rules for the common good. If that means little johnny can't play a video game, that's too bad. If his parents think they know better that's also too bad as they clearly don't understand why the law exists whcih demonstrates they don't know better.

How do you mean "life doesn't work that way"? We can't argue about merits of a law? Of course we can! I don't know what country you live in, but I'm willing to bet that this law is actually pretty new.
I am baffled at how easily you seem to dismiss the parents' judgement when it comes to deciding what is or isn't right for their children. Will you seriously argue that a ratings committee who has never met your child is better equipped to judge whether something is suitable than his own parents? The committee might be more knowledgeable about the game in question, but then again, maybe the parent has also extensively played the game. What we can be completely sure about, is that the committee doesn't know anything about your kid. And even if they would have (slightly) more information than the parents: don't you think that the parents should have the final say about how they raise their children?
If you don't, why not? The only reason I can think of is that you think that games are harmful to children. But that has never been proven. You may personally believe it (you'd not be alone), but that is not a good ground for legislation. And if we are going to take away decisions from parents if they can potentially (maybe) harm their children (a little bit), I think that there are a lot of areas that should be addressed before we start worrying about films and games.

 

[Blitzwarp]

Wow! That seems pretty ridiculous! You can actually be sent to prison for committing such a minor "crime"?

Yeah. It falls under supplying under-age persons with age-limited materials, the same jurisdiction used for alcohol and cigarettes. Colleague of mine at my old corner shop job negotiated in court to pay £3,500 in order to waive the prison sentence. And she was expected to make a lump-sum payment immediately. It was completely ridiculous.

 

[Kaytastrophe]

She likely realised the logical falacy of not buying RDR even after buying Blops, and so decided to use the ol' 'im the parent and i get to make no sense' card, and so just said, "yeah but thats different"

yeah that might make sense. She only learned about the rating systems after buying Black Ops. Also hypothetically the mom may have bought Black Ops thinking is was a historical game and her son might be into that and has studied it. I know when it came to violence and such my parents were much more open to me seeing it in the context of history because I had always enjoyed reading and studying WWII (yeah I am a huge nerd).

Or option 3: Shes a tool.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Personally, I do think that RDR is worse in terms of it's content but I don't think either game is entirely appropriate. Of course, I played Doom at 12 and Quake at 14, so perhaps I'm not the best judge of this sort of thing.

 

[ChaoticLegion]

my mum bought me loads of 18 games when i was younger, i remember being very young and playing GTA 3.

Exactly the same here. I wish people would quit bunching everyone under one general category.

Age ratings are a GUIDELINE. My parents allowed me to play games that were rated for older individuals as I was mature as a child and they trusted me with such games. Additionaly to this I can safely say that the violence nor lack of morals in these games have affected me in a negative way.

It is, at the end of the day, completely up to the parents as to what games they allow their children to play. Just because some parents are idiots who can't handle making such decisions, it does not mean that everyone else is incapable of making such a decision, or that if they do reach that conclusion they are wrong for doing so. Each circumstance must be looked at individualy.

age ratings arent a guideline, i worked in a shop (in the UK) and its a criminal offense to sell a game to someone below the age rating. if a parent is with them you have to sell it to the parent (which is stupid because they are going to give it to the kid anyway)

beside playing GTA at a young age is benificial. as your gaming muscles arent fully developed you soon realise that breaking the will get you arrested or dead. hell even nowadays i still struggle with a full on 6 star wanted level (except GTA IV, thats just too easy to go down the subway)

You have misunderstood me. Yes age ratings are a legal obligation to retailers, but as this thread is with relation to parents, the age ratings are merely a guideline.

 

[GonzoGamer]

It's because you're doing it on a horse.

Yea.
It's called the Hot Hay mod.

I would attribute this to either mental retardation or that it's a military family; they do have double standards.

Personally, unless the kid is unstable and you're afraid of him someday going on a shooting rampage, I don't think there's anything wrong with giving either game to a kid: mind you I haven't played through the entire Blops campaign.

 

[Blitzwarp]

Really? The store clerk can get in trouble for selling a game to an adult who happens to have a kid with them? Although it seems kind of obvious that the kid is the one who's going to be playing it, how can anyone prove that?

Yes. In the UK, a sales assistant who sells a video game or DVD to someone of the incorrect age can face immediate dismissal or severe disciplinary action, up to six months in prison, a £5,000 fine (note: the company does not pay the fine. The individual does.) and a criminal record. If it's a part of a Trading Standard's sting (I.E., a child is sent in all dolled up as an adult by TS to see if we will serve them), said sales assistant is arrested on-sight and lead away in handcuffs. It happened in one of our shops, and I pretty much think it's sickening.

As for the situation when an adult is stood with the child, it's difficult - especially if you have ID'd the kid and they've gone crying to mummy, who can (and will) get *very* upset. Basically you are not allowed to accept cash from or hand the item in question to said child; you must purely deal with the adult stood with them.

It can be harsh, no doubt, but then I can't think of any situation where the retailer would have been forced to break the law.

In the second scenario: you are playing with fire. If you knowingly supply the child, through their parent or not, you risk breaking the law. It's not a convenient loophole, and it's your ass on the line.

I support these age restrictions because the gaming industry is constantly under fire due to idiot parents either letting their kids play completely unsuyitable games or using consoles as babysitters. Game shops are not there to facilitate poor parenting and they aren't obliged to profit from loopholes in the law. While some kids may be mature enough to play the latest fad game (it's cool because it's 18 rated of course), the law is the law and sadly it's not possible to test that maturity in shops. If parents think they know better that's their prerogative, but they don't demonstrate that by circumventing the law like a jackass.

...I support the age restrictions as well. But if someone who is obviously forty years old comes to the till with an 18+ game and a child in tow, as long as it the parent who is handing me the money and taking the item, I cannot legally withhold it from sale on the suspicion that they are then going to hand it to the child. I have no proof whatsoever. (Even if said child has already tried to buy the game from me: it's why we have a refusal log in our shop.) It's only if I see the child hand the parent, or myself, the money that I can object.

 

[chaosraiden]

She likely realised the logical falacy of not buying RDR even after buying Blops, and so decided to use the ol' 'im the parent and i get to make no sense' card, and so just said, "yeah but thats different"

yeah that might make sense. She only learned about the rating systems after buying Black Ops. Also hypothetically the mom may have bought Black Ops thinking is was a historical game and her son might be into that and has studied it. I know when it came to violence and such my parents were much more open to me seeing it in the context of history because I had always enjoyed reading and studying WWII (yeah I am a huge nerd).

Or option 3: Shes a tool.

Definitely Option 3.

 

[Captain Pirate]

Black Ops is worse, violence wise.
Red Dead tries and succeeds in bringing heavy morals into the equation, making the killings less bloodthirsty violence. Plus BO's is right up close.

Fucking retarded parenting, simple.

Frankly I don't think the kid should have either; Red Dead is way to morally deep and a touching story for him to really appreciate it, and he probably wouldn't have understood or, again, really appreciated Black Ops' storytelling and plot twist.
That's what annoys me most, that the effort put into game's campaigns are wasted by those too young to appreciate them.

 

[Mehall]

Really? The store clerk can get in trouble for selling a game to an adult who happens to have a kid with them? Although it seems kind of obvious that the kid is the one who's going to be playing it, how can anyone prove that?

Yes. In the UK, a sales assistant who sells a video game or DVD to someone of the incorrect age can face immediate dismissal or severe disciplinary action, up to six months in prison, a £5,000 fine (note: the company does not pay the fine. The individual does.) and a criminal record. If it's a part of a Trading Standard's sting (I.E., a child is sent in all dolled up as an adult by TS to see if we will serve them), said sales assistant is arrested on-sight and lead away in handcuffs. It happened in one of our shops, and I pretty much think it's sickening.

As for the situation when an adult is stood with the child, it's difficult - especially if you have ID'd the kid and they've gone crying to mummy, who can (and will) get *very* upset. Basically you are not allowed to accept cash from or hand the item in question to said child; you must purely deal with the adult stood with them.

It can be harsh, no doubt, but then I can't think of any situation where the retailer would have been forced to break the law.

In the second scenario: you are playing with fire. If you knowingly supply the child, through their parent or not, you risk breaking the law. It's not a convenient loophole, and it's your ass on the line.

I support these age restrictions because the gaming industry is constantly under fire due to idiot parents either letting their kids play completely unsuyitable games or using consoles as babysitters. Game shops are not there to facilitate poor parenting and they aren't obliged to profit from loopholes in the law. While some kids may be mature enough to play the latest fad game (it's cool because it's 18 rated of course), the law is the law and sadly it's not possible to test that maturity in shops. If parents think they know better that's their prerogative, but they don't demonstrate that by circumventing the law like a jackass.

...I support the age restrictions as well. But if someone who is obviously forty years old comes to the till with an 18+ game and a child in tow, as long as it the parent who is handing me the money and taking the item, I cannot legally withhold it from sale on the suspicion that they are then going to hand it to the child. I have no proof whatsoever. (Even if said child has already tried to buy the game from me: it's why we have a refusal log in our shop.) It's only if I see the child hand the parent, or myself, the money that I can object.

Actually you can. Irrespective of whether the parent can use a loophole in the law, no retailer is ever obliged to sell anything to anyone. While the customer would no doubt be very pissed off, you can just refuse to serve them.

And as I said earlier in this thread, the customer will then walk outside to the GameStation/HMV/Supermarket/Grainger Games/etc and buy it there instead.

Well done, you didn't manage ANYTHING successful, AND the company lost out on a sale.

Come into the store I work in and you'll see everyone reminding buyers the reasons for age restrictions, but as I have said: 99% of the time the parent will say they want to buy it anyway.

Occasionally you get someone slightly sheepish who tries the "Ohh, it's really for me, you see." route.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Well, here's kind of what I'm thinking. Not to defend her, but just looking at potential logic here... Black Ops is a FPS. I'm thinking a lot of non gamers are still remembering the happy days of Golden Eye. Although there was violence, really, it was a game for all ages (let's say 10+). Well, obviously things have changed but parents generally aren't going to be fully informed. She probably thinks it's the same thing as always but with better graphics.

Thing is, she's mostly right I'd say. Yeah there's more blood and some swear words but there's nothing like scenes from BioShock, as an example of a mature FPS.

RDR tho is definitely more mature. You're not going to see a prostitute get stabbed to death by a drunkard in Black Ops, for example. Just in general I think there's more mature decisions to be made as well throughout the game. Black Ops is very straight forward. Good guys, bad guys, here's a gun go shoot them and get through the level. You don't really think about it much. RDR offers a lot of time to think. You also have the opportunity to do whatever you want (to a limited extent) such as murdering innocent people. You could wipe a whole town out. It's pretty human to think bad guys are ok to kill (although if you've been reading Shamus Plays Warcraft, that last one has some hilarious dialogue that turns the tables) but to give the player freedom to kill anyone seems to be a more mature and scary thing for parents to let their kids partake in.

This is a logically argued and reasoned argument as to why RDR is a more mature game than Black OPS, and i applaud you for that.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that this mother is thinking in this way, considering that she let the 11-year old play Black OPS (Which is less mature, but still not age appropriate for the child).Like you said, she probably isn't very well informed, and is probably unaware that Black OPS frames its narrative through flashbacks in a torture chamber.

Neither of these two games are something i'd give for an 11 year old to play.

eh but haven't you heard?

kids dont play campaigns.. its all about the multiplayer

(i know plenty of my cousins who dont even hit the start button on campaign.)

so thats out of the question almost, hell i garuntee 75% at least of underage kids who play that game dont know about those parts.

Is THAT why XBOX Live is supposed to be chock-full of abusive, swearing every other word in the mic, sexually and racially offensive players? Because they are under 13 and don't know what they are saying?
Now i don't just feel sorry for every decent person who might find themselves there, but also a bit for the ones causing the abuse (providing they are under 13, and have no clue what it is they are really saying), They just want to be like the cool older kids.

wait what? i'm not quite following what your getting at..some of your sentences are a bit run on.

 

[Zayren]

Black Ops isn't as bloody as RDR, really. There's also the scene where you walk in on the Mexican guy doing some chick on a table.

Right, lets see I skinned animal in rdr and a few bloodsplatters when people were shot.
In BOps I insert a knife into a mans skull, torture a man with glass, and saw through a guys neck with my knife(that last one caght me off gaurd due to how graphic it was).

Well that's pretty fucking rude, huh?