Poll: What Age Do You Buy Your Child a Violent Video Game?

[Sateru]

If he wants to play a video game, he can play one for the Sega Genesis... or the PS1... I'm gonna get him to appreciate video games as an art form. He can play rated T video games when he is able to show that he can be a responsible mature adult about playing video games. I refuse to let him play anything with blood, gore, tits, and sexual themes until after puberty where he'll be a terrifying pubescent monster that won't be my precious baby and then he's buying them with his own money that he'll get from mowing lawns or paper routes.

DX Gawd... now I'm reminded about why I don't want a child anyways. They are cute and adorable until they become nightmarish teenage hell monsters.

 

[Deadyawn]

I think 10 years old is a little too young to be playing particularly violent games. After a year or two and taking the child's maturity and disposition in to account and I would consider it.

 

[Radelaide]

A pointless question. What is this hypothetical game? Certain games are just violent, I'd probably let them play that. But the game might deal with some mature themes instead. Nothing really comes to mind, except Heavy Rain, but I haven't played that. Of course, I also have to ask what this hypothetical child is like, how mature are they, what games have they played before, do I think they can handle it, and of course, why the fuck do I have a child? That's the scenario anyway. As to the poll, I voted option 2. I'd decide at what age a game is appropriate for my child, on a case by case basis.

Okay Captain "ruin my awesome thread". Try... Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. A game hailed for it's violence but something that is popular amongst <18 groups anyway.

 

[TheMann]

Through something called "responsible parenting" and interaction with my own offspring, which any decent parent should have plenty of, I should be able to make a sound judgment on what sort of games they are allowed to play.

As far as M rated games, certain ones like TF2 should be okay due to its rather cartoon nature. I'd even consider Half Life, depending on how mature I think my kid is. A game like BioShock, on the other hand, I'd probably hold off on for a while due to the more wanton style of violence and profuse use of profanity in it.

Games like Portal and StarCraft would be encouraged.

 

[OldGus]

Basically, I'd decide.

A lot of the ratings are or seem arbitrary. For example, I imagine with no blood splatter and no dismemberment just because Australia's old man government doesn't want that, L4D2 still got a very high rating. Being perfectly honest, removing those things, the game should actually rate very low compared to many war related games. If a game is rated high for blood or gore, I'd look at the overall message of the game. GTA, obviously not, since it rewards you for more death and carnage. A similar nix on most war games. However, though few, a game that actually teaches the value of life, and shows how horrible death is on a personal level, that I'd be ok with. Especially if it doesn't then encourage vengeance (So SR2, while having some heart-rending moments, would not qualify.)

If a game is rated high for cursing, I wouldn't care as much. Any kid I raise needs to understand there are some things you don't say in some company that's ok in other company, and definitely needs to understand that saying the wrong thing could get you into trouble, if not a full-on fist fight.

Fighting games, a definite not-until-they-are-at-least-12. However, I wouldn't mind sending them to fighting classes as early as 5, especially since that teaches real consequences to fighting.

Alcohol... I want my kids growing up with a respect for alcohol, rather than a fear. So especially something like Fable, where it shows your character vomiting when they drink too much, yeah, I'd be fine with that.

Sex, blatant sex, I'd say 14 is probably alright (this really depends on the age when they will be ok with the realization that Mom and Dad still have sex, and likely, so do my parents.) Adult themes could be even younger. Hell, I'd probably let my kids play Catherine the minute they're old enough to understand the words. Again, respect is more important than fear.

Realistically, any violent games in my house would probably be there because I'm playing them, so I should have a fairly good estimate of what my kids are getting into. Most of all, I'd really appreciate being able to play with them, so I can educate and supervise while they play, and so I can get a little bonding time in.

Ah, the one possible exception to these rules (all of the above) would be (real, not shoot-em-up) survival horror. They're like the scary stories of our age, and really depend on a kid-by-kid basis there.

 

[brunothepig]

A pointless question. What is this hypothetical game? Certain games are just violent, I'd probably let them play that. But the game might deal with some mature themes instead. Nothing really comes to mind, except Heavy Rain, but I haven't played that. Of course, I also have to ask what this hypothetical child is like, how mature are they, what games have they played before, do I think they can handle it, and of course, why the fuck do I have a child? That's the scenario anyway. As to the poll, I voted option 2. I'd decide at what age a game is appropriate for my child, on a case by case basis.

Okay Captain "ruin my awesome thread". Try... Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. A game hailed for it's violence but something that is popular amongst <18 groups anyway.

Haha. Wasn't trying to ruin the thread, just saying the scenario was too vague for me to give a definitive answer. Modern Warfare, I like to think my child would be mature enough to handle it, although I'd probably only let him play it offline, or after I perma-mute everyone. That little warning, "game experience may change online". Truer words were never spoken. As I said above though, I really hope I'm never faced with this decision because I don't want kids. Maybe I'll buy Modern Warfare 10 for my nephew in four or five years.

I should also point out that here in Australia 15 year olds can play the game anyway because our rating system is retarded...

 

[DazBurger]

I guess about 10... Maybe 12, but restrict them from using a mic, for others sake.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hmmm...though it's easy to speak of "responsible parenthood", how many people label themselves as irresponsible parents?

When do you ever hear someone say "I think the government should interfere more in the raising of children, because I, and others like me, are fucking awful parents, and many of us really should be treated like children ourselves"?

 

[twistedmic]

It will mainly depend on how violent, graphic and realistic the violence is. And before I'd buy the game, or let them play it, I'd do some research on the game first like talking with the salesperson, checking online or renting the game and playing it a bit myself.
For example, I'd be more willing to buy my ten-twelve year old one of the Halo games than COD4 or beyond.

I would also limit the time that I let them play, though that would be to make sure that they didn't sit inside all day staring at the tv screen, not because I think violent video games would make them violent.

 

[svenjl]

Violence is one thing, but the themes and dialogue in a game are important too. If a game has adult level sexual references and obvious drug use then I would not let my boys play it until they were at least 16 and showed a level head. On the other hand, the violence in Dead Space 2 doesn't bother me as much as other games as it basically involves aliens/monsters. Kids are all different though. I would start kids around 7-8 years old off on Lego Star Wars, various Mario games, sport sims, and progress to action RPGs like Torchlight, Dungeon Siege and Trine if they like. Maybe by the time they hit 10-11 they can save the world with dad in Halo.

 

[meow]

I played half-life 1 when i was 6-7ish and im fine but on the other hand my brothers friend played some violent games (not sure which) at around 5 or so and is crazy bounces off the walls.
so i would defiantly base it off if i think my kid could handle the game.

 

[xdiesp]

If and when you will ever have children, you will find out that you're brought to protect them from any chance of harm or scares, taking no chances which means no experimenting with PEGI's limits.

But before that, keep confusing any argument about violence in videogames with the story in your head that "I'm a big boy now, can play any videogame I want".

 

[The_Echo]

I don't care how violent or what rating the game is. If my kid wants it, I'm gonna get it for him. (I don't have a kid yet, still don't know if I will, but I'm assuming he or she will be able to tell between what's real and what's not, and have a proper understanding of their personal boundaries considering violence.) Hell, it might even be a game I want (or already have).

Unless I'm aware that the game is a piece of shit. I will not raise my kid on shitty games.

how old is old enough for your child to play violent video games without any supervision.

To be quite honest, I'd probably watch my kid play a game. I like watching people play games.

EDIT: Regarding other mature contents (sexual themes, drug use, pig rodeos): The age would really depend on how mentally mature they are.

 

[HassEsser]

I would literally let my child play Grand Theft Auto or God of War the minute he came out of the womb, if that were possible.

 

[Stammer]

If I ever had a child, I'd probably let him or her play any game he or she chose starting at like 5 years old. I think that's about when I first played Mortal Kombat, myself. Hell, I think I was like 7 or 8 when I got Duke Nukem 64.

 

[Jodah]

I always said I would let my kids have what they wanted if they could do one of two things.

A) Prove to me why they should be allowed to have it/that it will be put to good use. They have to be able to argue the point (I won't pull any of that because I said so crap).

B) Afford it themselves by working (chores, mowing lawns, etc). If they can earn and save money they are mature enough.

If they are old enough to win a debate or earn money themselves they are old enough to know right and wrong.

 

[manic_depressive13]

The rating system is ridiculously exaggerated to safeguard against the complaints of the most fanatic nutcases. It's just a game. Any ten year old is capable of grasping that concept. My brother and I were playing 15+ games (which is the max in Australia) years before we were supposed to. We had mortal kombat on the enormous shitty box PC when I was eight, at most.

Upshot of this is, kids aren't fucking retarded. It's condescending to think that a kid needs to be fifteen ficking years old to comprehend the difference between fantasy and reality. Fifteen! How small of an opinion can you possibly have of your own kid's intelligence?

 

[J-dog42]

I don't have children, but I did buy my brothers Halo: Reach. Dad didn't want to get it for them, despite the fact that they already had Halo 3, because he didn't like shooting games. So I got it for them. But it really comes down to knowing what the game is like. I would let them have some R16 or R18 games but not others. I think the rating can be really weird sometimes.