GTA V Proves a Lot of Parents Still Don't Know or Care About ESRB Ratings

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GTA V Proves a Lot of Parents Still Don't Know or Care About ESRB Ratings

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday September 24, 2013 @05:56AM from the rated-L-for-learn-how-to-be-a-parent dept.

Deathspawner writes "Grand Theft Auto V has shown itself to be potential GOTY material, and has even managed to break a sales record already. But aside from that, the game has also become one of the most adult-oriented games ever released, with torture, drug use and sex prevalent not long after beginning the game. You'd expect this gameplay to deter most parents from picking the game up for their young children — but not so. An anonymous editorial at Kotaku written by a video game store employee says that out of the ~1,000 copies sold in the first week, at least 10% of them went to parents accompanied by a child. Clearly, this could be interpreted as a problem. Techgage adds that this is one of the biggest problems facing gaming today. With one breath, many parents criticize video games for being so violent, and with the next, they're saying 'thanks' at the counter after picking up these very games for their kids. While ESRB ratings and other warnings about violent games for kids have good reason to exist, many parents still ignore them, aren't aware to them, or simply don't care about their warnings."

83 of 621 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Some people... by SpaceWiz · 2013-09-24 05:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Some people still think that video games are only for kids, regardless of the content of the game. Getting past this idea would help a lot.
1. Re:Some people... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-24 06:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Some people also have the silly idea that violent video games can somehow harm children.
  Can we finally put this concept to bed, please? Your ten-year-old isn't going to be irreparably mentally harmed from playing GTA5. Or from watching a violent movie or sneaking a look at some porn on the Internet.
2. Re:Some people... by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-09-24 06:09 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This was brought up in another conversation I had today...
  We have this idea that kids as old as 16 aren't "fully formed" people. But if your kid doesn't understand the difference between fantasy and reality at 10 or 11 or 12 then there is a parenting problem or other general mental illness. They aren't just lumps of clay that get reasoning ability by magic on their 18th birth day. It's amazing how most of the population forgets what being aged 10-18 is like later in life... this is something they should know already.
3. Re:Some people... by TWiTfan · 2013-09-24 06:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, your kid is probably not going to be "irreparably mentally harmed" from being exposed to violent video games too early. But there is such a thing as exposing a kid to shit that they're too young to handle (or understand). And that's not a good thing.
  A kid's innocence is a precious thing, and it's a shame to squander it too early. That doesn't mean I want to have my 12-year-old still believing in Santa Claus, but I also don't want him introduced to the ugly world of violent crime, drugs, and prostitution while he's still in kindergarten either.
  
  --
  The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
4. Re:Some people... by Nadaka · 2013-09-24 06:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Part of the problem is that that the majority of adults can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality either. How many people are religious after all? And even if you buy into the silly notion that one religion may be correct, then the billions of people who follow the other religions are still fully believing in fantasy.
  But then, simple violence and sex in media does not represent a fundamental attack on human rationality that religion in media does, even though it is somehow seen as more acceptable.
5. Re:Some people... by gstoddart · 2013-09-24 06:37 · Score: 2
  
  We have this idea that kids as old as 16 aren't "fully formed" people. But if your kid doesn't understand the difference between fantasy and reality at 10 or 11 or 12 then there is a parenting problem or other general mental illness.
  I'm not sure it's quite so black and white.
  Does your child understand that these things wouldn't be acceptable? Or do they think that's how you're supposed to do it?
  There's an oft-quoted thing (which I have no idea is true) that you can't test a teenager to see if they're a sociopath, because most teenagers test as a sociopath anyway.
  And, to be honest, what little I remember of being 10 and what I've seen of kids that age since then that there is that much of a solid differentiation between fantasy and reality, or that it's indicative of other mental illnesses. Your average 10 year old is going to be fuzzy on some concepts of morality, and completely oblivious to others.
  I think the reason people say they're not fully formed people is because there are still things going on that precludes them from being able to make certain kinds of judgements because they don't yet have the experience and maturity to do it.
  And I'm just not convinced that giving a 10 year old GTA is really a good choice -- and a bunch of years ago when my nephews were around that age and someone bought them a copy of GTA, I wasn't sure it was a good idea then either. Stealing cars and smacking down ho's wasn't something you wanted them growing up emulating.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
6. Re:Some people... by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-09-24 06:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That's a parent's prerogative. There isn't anyone better than the parent to decide what his/her kid can handle. It's individual to that child.
7. Re:Some people... by bluefoxlucid · 2013-09-24 06:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "Ma'am, I must take 15 seconds before you purchase this game to inform you that it includes content such as fucking prostitutes in the back seat of a stolen vehicle and then murdering them to get your money back, as well as torturing and murdering ... basically anyone. Oh and fucking whores is a good way to make yourself healthy. Is this purchase for a child?"
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
8. Re:Some people... by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-09-24 06:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Funny thing about a lot of parents, at least in the US, is they believe that seeing a woman's nipple does more damage to a child's innocence than any amount of gory body shrapnel.
9. Re:Some people... by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-09-24 06:48 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I think you missed part of my point, which is that what a person can handle is based on that person. There are 30 year olds "kids" out there that can't handle GTA, but I'm sure that there are 8 year olds that can. There is nothing magic about the number, though my personal feeling (not a parent mind you) that a 12 year old kid should have a concept of art, that depiction of something doesn't equal promotion of something, and they can rollplay as a bad person without being a bad person themselves.
  Kids aren't commodities. They are people (this is why the "fully formed person" and the hatred of teenagers get on my craw... they aren't non-humans) and each one is different. This article made some pretty sweeping statements about what is right and wrong for ANY person.
10. Re:Some people... by TWiTfan · 2013-09-24 06:58 · Score: 2
  
  Am I the only one reading this as "I'm not a parent"?
  
  --
  The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
11. Re:Some people... by SuperTechnoNerd · 2013-09-24 07:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If i had 1000 mod points. I would give em to you. You hit the nail on the head. Of course even here on slashdot, we will get modded down because "you can't attack religion" the number one fantasy of them all. Teaching your kid religion is worse that letting them play video games all day. Teaching religion and god is tantamount to child abuse. Yet as you said "somehow seen as more acceptable." Time to stop walking on egg shells when some one says something bad about religion. Unlike religious people, at least we can all agree characters in video games are not real..
  
  Let the flames start in 3...2..1..
12. Re:Some people... by SleazyRidr · 2013-09-24 07:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  There is an argument to be made that at that age their brains are still developing and you don't want them developing the killing hookers areas. I think that's quite valid: you want your children to grow up to do good things, so you should be encouraging good things as early as possible.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
13. Re:Some people... by Nadaka · 2013-09-24 07:08 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  That isn't actually my argument for atheism.
  Its my argument for the majority of people believe in a fantasy that remains valid even for many of the individuals who happen to believe that one particular fantasy is real.
14. Re:Some people... by sunking2 · 2013-09-24 07:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That's because exposure to shrapnel is pretty unlikely. Exposure to women will happen. Women are not fantasy and we interact with them every day and it would be nice if they weren't treated like objects of desire 24/7 rather than the between 9pm-3am that it is supposed to be.
15. Re:Some people... by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-09-24 07:48 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  What made you think that images of female nipples had to involve porn or sex? I mean maybe you're being a bit tongue in cheek here but let's face it - by classifying a woman's breast as 'dirty' and something that would 'taint innocence', puritanism has indelibly associated women with porn and lewd behaviour. Ironically the same applies to hardcore feminism, albeit from a different angle.
16. Re:Some people... by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2013-09-24 07:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's worth remembering here that the objection is not that children do not possess the ability to recognise the difference between fantasy and reality, rather it's that they're "impressionable". Their behavioural patterns are still being established, via a system of negative and positive rewards for their behaviour.
  Normally, when a child commits a needlessly aggressive act, they are negatively rewarded by their parents telling them off, or possibly by the parents hitting them in (hopefully) extreme circumstances. When a child plays a violent video game, the game purposefully rewards violent behaviour with things like progress, a sense of achievement, unlockables/collectables, etc.
  Being children, they unconsciously associate the endorphin rush with aggressive acts, or at least, the aggressive acts they commit to video game characters. The obvious question, of course, is whether that positive association with simulated violence corresponds to a positive association with actual violence, or even just aggression. That's something for the behavioural psychologists to decide. Until they do, I think it would be wise to exercise caution.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
17. Re:Some people... by Frobnicator · 2013-09-24 08:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Stealing cars and smacking down ho's wasn't something you wanted them growing up emulating.
  If that was all you did in GTA 5, I'd probably agree that some youths could play it.
  But that is NOT what GTA 5 is like.
  In GTA 3 you had the option of picking up a prostitute. The car would rock back and forth, you lose money and gain health, then the prostitute gets out. It was a little controversial, but you could just as easily see this in The Sims by making the characters 'WooHoo'.
  Contrast this with GTA 5 where you are encouraged to see and repeatedly play a minigame with graphic topless lap dances and get points for interactively molesting women. This is not a stripper dancing in the background, this is full on realistic boobs-in-your-face interactive softcore porn.
  So lets say you're fine with your seven year old watching interactive porn. What about the violence?
  Look at the older games, you could avoid some violence, and even though you were playing a bad character you could keep the violence to a minimum if you wanted.
  Not so in GTA 5. You are required (as the player) to engage in gratuitous torture. We're not talking about mild depictions of something bad going on. This is you as the player being required to commit heinous virtual crimes. It is very explicit, and very graphic. Even many adults balk at that point in the game.
  If you are looking for a game of "stealing cars and smacking down ho's", a game that you can let your pre-teen child play, then go get Need For Speed.
  This game should have been rated as AO.
  
  --
  //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
18. Re:Some people... by squiggleslash · 2013-09-24 08:01 · Score: 2
  
  Completely agree.
  FWIW, when I was in my very early twenties, I played a game on my Amiga called "Hired Guns". It was awesome. Recommended to anyone with UAE and access to an abandonware copy.
  It also, literally, gave me nightmares. Over several nights. I'd stop playing it, pick it up a few weeks later, and the nightmares would start again. And yeah, they were images related directly to what was in the game, it wasn't some weird coincidence where I'd have a dream about scary ponies or something.
  That was in my early twenties. And Slashdot's legion of child rearing experts are now telling you that you're a terrible censor for being careful about what games your kid plays because it might have effects they're too young to handle.
  (FWIW, one of the issues that lead our dear friend and Slashdotter role model Hans Reiser to kill his wife was that she wasn't entirely happy about his insistance that his kids play violent computer games with him. Even though said kids were effected enough that Nina was able to argue, successfully to a court deciding custody issues, that they had PTSD.)
  My wife and I have different views about what's harmful for our child, with strong differences of opinion on when to have the birds and the bees talk, for example: but I'm pretty confident we see eye to eye on video games. Any zombies more realistic than "Plants vs Zombies" are going to have to wait until my daughter's old enough to seek out that content. The only pill popping she'll see will be in PacMan. GTA V? Or VI, X, or M? That'll have to wait.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
19. Re:Some people... by jeffmflanagan · 2013-09-24 08:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I got to wondering about adults watching this kids show, so checked it out to see if it's really well written with a lot for adults like some cartoons. I watched season 1 episodes 1 and 2 and season 2 episode 1 in an attempt to give it fair chance, and it appears to be a horrible, treacly kids show that would drive any adult insane with the childish plots and squeaky voices.
20. Re:Some people... by narcc · 2013-09-24 08:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Of course even here on slashdot, we will get modded down because "you can't attack religion"
  What on earth are you talking about? Slashdot users are all but universally Atheist. The bulk of them aren't terribly competent, of course, but that's the kind that guarantee up mods for saying simple thinks like "religious people are dumb" or "ghosts don't exist".
  Now, if you REALLY want to hit that +5, make a "scientific" claim that appeals to Atheists but has no actual scientific foundation or that is outside the scope of science. For example, you could say "Science has disproved the god hypothesis" and the scientifically illiterate majority of Slashdot users will immediate mod your post up.
  Failing that, just repeat empty rhetoric that you heard from the less-than-competent during the Dover trial. That appears to be your approach:
  
  Teaching religion and god is tantamount to child abuse.
  
  Time to stop walking on egg shells when some one says something bad about religion.
  It's sad, really.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
21. Re:Some people... by AlphaWoIf_HK · 2013-09-24 08:11 · Score: 2
  
  There is an argument to be made that at that age their brains are still developing and you don't want them developing the killing hookers areas.
  I don't think that's a good argument, but it is damn amusing. I can only laugh at the people who think such things are even remotely common, or exist at all.
  
  --
  Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
22. Re:Some people... by jeffmflanagan · 2013-09-24 08:12 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Why would you classify atheists as a out-group? Do you fail to understand that the supernatural is imaginary?
  
  Don't you think we should have a special word for people who are so gullible that they fall for supernaturalist nonsense, rather than for those smart enough to see through it?
  
  It's a national embarrassment that so many Americans default to believing in fairy tales that demanding evidence for extraordinary claims is considered the behavior of an out-group.
23. Re:Some people... by Frobnicator · 2013-09-24 08:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There are 30 year olds "kids" out there that can't handle GTA, but I'm sure that there are 8 year olds that can. There is nothing magic about the number
  No. That might have been true with GTA in the past. Not GTA 5.
  Go look at the topless lap dance minigame. Well, don't, because doing so at work might get you fired, and doing it at home might end your marriage. It is a full-on very graphic boobs-in-face lapdance.
  No reasonable adult would deny the minigame is softcore porn.
  While it is true some 8-year-olds can visit porn sites and see it elsewhere, in doing so they get all the "adults only" and "this is a work of fiction" and other warnings that tell you it is not socially accepted. They might still see it, but they have absolute knowledge that they shouldn't. In most countries of the world, if a non-parent gave an 8-year-old access to the same level of porn as GTA 5's strip club, they would be severely punished.
  Handing GTA 5 to an 8-year-old child and telling them to enjoy themselves is not acceptable.
  
  --
  //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
24. Re:Some people... by DexterIsADog · 2013-09-24 08:22 · Score: 2
  
  There is an argument to be made that at that age their brains are still developing and you don't want them developing the killing hookers areas. I think that's quite valid: you want your children to grow up to do good things, so you should be encouraging good things as early as possible.
  Exactly right, good point. I thank god my parents made sure to keep me away from experiences that developed "the killing hookers areas" of my brain, and substituted things to grow the "getting into business school and attracting a nice girl" areas. And on weekends they worked on my "love your parents" and "look both ways before crossing the street" areas. And showering, they didn't forget showering.
  
  Does your knowledge of human development come from looking at a phrenology model of the head?
25. Re:Some people... by citizenr · 2013-09-24 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  Your idea about religion, generalized is:
  "There are multiple versions of an event, therefore no version can be true".
  I guess you never had to deal with witnesses, in both good or bad faith. In elementary school I had to, possibly I had a more interesting life than yours.
  You sure did, dealing with all those witnesses reporting ZOMBIES. Im sure you believed them, nothing weird or wrong with dead rising from graves.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
26. Re:Some people... by The+Grim+Reefer · 2013-09-24 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  If i had 1000 mod points. I would give em to you. You hit the nail on the head. Of course even here on slashdot, we will get modded down because "you can't attack religion" the number one fantasy of them all. Teaching your kid religion is worse that letting them play video games all day. Teaching religion and god is tantamount to child abuse. Yet as you said "somehow seen as more acceptable." Time to stop walking on egg shells when some one says something bad about religion. Unlike religious people, at least we can all agree characters in video games are not real.. Let the flames start in 3...2..1..
  Nice how you end that with "Let the flames start..." when you yourself have already started a flaming others. But you can justify that since you are of a superior intelligence compared to anyone who is religious or spiritual. Or perhaps I've misjudged you based on what you've stated.
  On one hand, I agree with you. Some (or even many, depending on your experience) "religious people" are obnoxious. But not all. I have friends and family who are Atheists, agnostic, Quaker, Catholic (and numerous flavors of Christianity), Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccians, Mormons,etc. You know what? I don't really care. As long as they are not telling me, or anyone else how to live, what does it matter? All of them feel their beliefs make them strive to be a better person. I see nothing wrong with that. What I do take issue with is when someone, anyone, tries to force their beliefs on others. If a Christian tells someone they are going to go to hell for being an atheist, I take issue with it. When Muslims try to enforce Sharia law, or kill and force others to convert to Islam, I'm appalled. When Mormons baptize holocaust victims, I find this offensive. I also find it obnoxious when Atheists berate others who do not believe as they do. By comparing religion to child abuse you have shown yourself to be no better than the self righteous religious people you find so terrible
  I do agree with my atheist friends that teaching of creationism does not belong in school science. But I feel that there should be someplace for Muslims and others to be allowed to be allowed to leave the main classroom to pray if that is one of the edicts of their religion. However, no one should be forced to perform a religious ritual that is against their belief system. And others should not be allowed to force their (anti)religious belief(s) either.
  Most religions really have the same message. Be good to each other. The details and names are different. But that's really what it boils down to. I'm sure there will be replays talking about all of the bad things that religion has caused over the years. But most of those have to do with power mad people twisting the main message to meet their own perverse goals
27. Re:Some people... by AlphaWoIf_HK · 2013-09-24 08:24 · Score: 2
  
  Enough so that militaries use it as a tool to condition soldiers to get used to the violence and expect it.
  At one point, law enforcement agencies sometimes hired psychic detectives to solve crimes. The government sometimes (oftentimes) takes idiotic courses of action; what else is new?
  But even if that is true, and it might be, it's still nothing like real world violence, and it very likely won't make them into murderers, as you said. If it has any effects at all, they seem to be rather minor, so I don't see a cause for concern.
  
  --
  Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
28. Re:Some people... by VortexCortex · 2013-09-24 08:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Some people also have the silly idea that violent video games can somehow harm children.
  Can we finally put this concept to bed, please? Your ten-year-old isn't going to be irreparably mentally harmed from playing GTA5. Or from watching a violent movie or sneaking a look at some porn on the Internet.
  ... or from hunting deer, or slaughtering their own food, or gutting a chicken, or seeing everyone running around nude in Africa.
  It's interesting isn't it? A 3rd world child knows more about reality from merely existing than a child in the USA. You laugh when the 6 year old child thinks women have penises too, or that men don't have them... You fumble for words to describe the cycle of life and death as if such simple things aren't known to any who helps cook meals... Then you wonder why as they grow older they have severe relationship issues, teen pregnancy, and haven't a care in the world about politics, or their nation's killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in blame shifted retaliation for a terrorist attack that killed a few thousand.
  If you ask me, we should be showing the kids even more "violent" video games. Let's have 3rd grade curriculum require playing a Hiroshima survivor simulator... Or at least watch the cartoon. That's how your war budget could get redirected to NASA instead: Stop raising vapid ignoramuses.
29. Re:Some people... by rolfwind · 2013-09-24 08:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That's because exposure to shrapnel is pretty unlikely. Exposure to women will happen. Women are not fantasy and we interact with them every day and it would be nice if they weren't treated like objects of desire 24/7 rather than the between 9pm-3am that it is supposed to be.
  I'm waiting for the punchline here, because nudity is pervasive in European media (at least when I was growing up) and I got desensitized to nipples. They're about as exciting as men's nipples, like the nipples I seen in the mirror every day. It's actually shockingly sad you would compare a simple nipple to gory body shrapnel.
  I mean, you could take your argument and apply it in favor of women wearing burkas.
30. Re:Some people... by houghi · 2013-09-24 08:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Religion? Just look at advertising. It is BASED on people not knowing the difference between fantasy and reality.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
31. Re:Some people... by PRMan · 2013-09-24 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  I've watched a lot of shows with my kids: DC Animated Universe, iCarly, etc. While not always great, they are at least usually intelligent and well-written. But my youngest daughter likes MLP for some reason and I can't stand it. It's the only show my kids have ever persisted in watching when my other kids and I tell her it's garbage.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
32. Re:Some people... by Mr.+Flibble · 2013-09-24 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  I found the same thing.
  It seems to me that some people tried to set this up as a cool meme as a joke, and then it took on a life of its own. People watch the show because they believe it is cool, and they believe it is cool because other people watch the show......
  
  --
  Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
33. Re:Some people... by Kelbear · 2013-09-24 09:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Parent poster is on to something.
  When I was kid, games were not as realistic as they are today, but with that being said, I didn't play games to revel in violence. It was mostly about power fantasy, overcoming challenges, and mapping and defeating abstract systems. In the vast majority of games, violence is simply the substrate through which those ideas came through. Games with limited depictions of violence don't bother me too badly since they're easily forgotten and largely ignored by the player after the first couple repetitions.
  I do take issue with some story elements though. Anyone who has been playing GTA games should know that banging hookers is just a momentary distraction in dozens of hours of gameplay that have nothing to do with that activity. But as the parent poster pointed out, people in GTA games are tremendously shitty people, and the player should have enough world experience to have some greater perspective over the underlying cynicism that pervades the world of Rockstar games. Similarly, I'm not going to let a kid watch a show like Niptuck, , 24, or Breaking Bad. Anti-heroes can be interesting to watch, but I don't want a kid's worldview shaped from the outlook of anti-heroes.
  People can be shitty. This is true. People can also be shockingly good. People are usually both shitty and good in varying degrees. In my years as a teenager through my years as a young adult, I had too much cynicism, too much pessimism. I had ideas about what the world was, and I was wrong. I'm probably still wrong today as an adult, but at least I've learned enough to realize that. I would like to protect my kid from sinking large amounts of time into a game with such negative themes at least until he's old enough to compartmentalize that world properly, or see the satire in it. Teenagers are at high risk for taking on a jaded look at the world, I'm not going to help that happen to mine.
  I don't have a hard and fast rules about when my kid will get to play what games. I'm a gamer who knows where to find enough information to make judgement calls as each case comes up. I also know that there are a ton of awesome games a kid can be playing instead of games that force the question of whether or not your kid should be playing it.
  I think the more important take-away from discussions on appropriate videogame usage is that parents should ensure the proper context is set for what their kids play (and how much they get to play).
34. Re: Some people... by SCPRedMage · 2013-09-24 09:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think the harder part for you is realizing the fact that evidence the people held these beliefs in the past is not the same as evidence of truth of these beliefs.
  
  --
  My sig can beat up your sig.
35. Re:Some people... by rufty_tufty · 2013-09-24 09:52 · Score: 2
  
  In most countries of the world, if a non-parent gave an 8-year-old access to the same level of porn as GTA 5's strip club, they would be severely punished.
  
  Handing GTA 5 to an 8-year-old child and telling them to enjoy themselves is not acceptable.
  Not played GTA5 yet, just 4.
  I find it ever amazing that what you think is most unacceptable - or at least the example you choose - is not the murder or the general violence, or the drugs or the rape, but the soft core porn.
  Now I will accept the argument that it's the attitude around that soft core porn that is pernicious and corrupting - that women are sex objects to be used and then discarded - but I cannot accept that a strip club is the worst thing in that game.
  Why does a film showing people shooting each other get a PG while you still can't yet have a fully naked man in a sexual situation in mainstream entertainment. Seriously? Which one do you think is actually the more dangerous idea of acceptable behaviour?
  
  --
  "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
36. Re:Some people... by dcollins · 2013-09-24 10:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "Most religions really have the same message. Be good to each other. The details and names are different. But that's really what it boils down to."
  That's, like, deliberate ignorance. Take a course on comparative religion or something.
  
  --
  We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
37. Re:Some people... by Kjella · 2013-09-24 10:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Most religions really have the same message. Be good to each other. The details and names are different. But that's really what it boils down to. I'm sure there will be replays talking about all of the bad things that religion has caused over the years. But most of those have to do with power mad people twisting the main message to meet their own perverse goals
  In summary, you've never actually read the texts but imagined what it is you would like them to say. Religions aren't egalitarian and universally generous, they're highly exclusive and competitive. My religion is right, everyone else's is wrong. Good things will happen to you if you follow my religion, bad things will happen to you if you don't. Spread my truths and stop the unbelievers from spreading their lies. It's all different versions of carrot and stick, not just carrots and not for everyone. They all sell you on a similar story whether it's Heaven, Jannah (Islamic Heaven), Nirvana (Buddhism) or Vaikuntha (Hinduism) but while you don't care which religion, the religions do. If you don't accept Jesus Christ as your savior you're still going to hell and that's not really open for interpretation. We just like to quietly ignore those parts that aren't palatable in a multicultural world.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
38. Re:Some people... by mevets · 2013-09-24 10:16 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  That is an odd phenomena you are experiencing. It is almost as if the more you detest something, the more attractive it becomes to your child. If only somebody else had experienced this.
39. Re: Some people... by tolkienfan · 2013-09-24 10:21 · Score: 2
  
  Most shows aimed at kids are horrible - even for kids.
  "Phineas and Ferb" and "The Last Airbender" are notable exceptions.
  As for parents buying adult games for their kids, I don't think anyone should have any say except the parents. Having the game labelled with the content is enough.
  If parents are too stupid or lazy to be well informed, then their kids will have more trouble than just seeing inappropriate content in video games.
40. Re:Some people... by Frobnicator · 2013-09-24 10:51 · Score: 2
  
  In most countries of the world, if a non-parent gave an 8-year-old access to the same level of porn as GTA 5's strip club, they would be severely punished.
  Why does a film showing people shooting each other get a PG while you still can't yet have a fully naked man in a sexual situation in mainstream entertainment. Seriously? Which one do you think is actually the more dangerous idea of acceptable behaviour?
  Morals and ethics, basically. Minors are 'protected' from sex in almost every country, and that protection includes restrictions from giving them or showing them porn. The age varies around the world, I understand some countries the age of consent is as low as 14, but until that age they are protected.
  After doing some web searches that are sure to get me on various watch lists, It looks like in the US it is unlawful to show porn to minors even if they are the parents... except possibly Texas.
  
  --
  //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
41. Re:Some people... by ultranova · 2013-09-24 11:15 · Score: 2
  
  Part of the problem is that that the majority of adults can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality either.
  
  Indeed. And a particularly common fantasy is the idea that people who disagree with you are evil or stupid or both. Look at US politics to get an idea where that road will lead, and ask yourself if you really want to go there.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
42. Re:Some people... by jkauzlar · 2013-09-24 11:33 · Score: 2
  
  It's not uncommon to point out that showing tits is ridiculously regarded as more of a problem that showing violence and gore, but the problem I would have with GTA V is not the tits, it's the sexualization of them. If I had kids, I wouldn't mind bringing them to a nude beach, but I wouldn't bring them to a strip club. As far as the sex and violence, whether they can distinguish between real life and fantasy is moot. Young kids barely even HAVE a "real life", so the values they're taking from media aren't going to be contrasted against any real experience, but taken as is. I'm just talking about kids 13 or younger.. once you're fourteen or so, you're probably old enough to handle an animated strip dance.
Different Parents by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-24 05:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

"With one breath, many parents criticize video games for being so violent, and with the next, they're saying 'thanks' at the counter after picking up these very games for their kids."

Maybe these are two different groups of parents...
1. Re:Different Parents by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-09-24 06:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well.. this and the U.S. still has this puritan crap going on in the background that makes general violence and minimal amount of gore FINE but that showing too much of a boob (or anything slightly sexual) will TOTALLY CORRUPT MY BABY!
  Seriously... killing people is fine but something that makes you feel good and is a gift to mankind.. NO WAY. OMG!!
2. Re:Different Parents by Russ1642 · 2013-09-24 06:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'd wager we're talking about the same parents. The ones that are vocally opposed to violent video games are the ones who think that if WalMart sells it then it must be ok for little Jimmy. They're naivety knows no bounds.
3. Re:Different Parents by OakDragon · 2013-09-24 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  This comment:
  
  at least 10% of them went to parents accompanied by a child
  I guess is based on this quote from the linked article:
  
  Last week my store sold over a thousand copies of GTA V, at least a hundred of which were sold to parents for children who could barely even see over my counter
  Could it be for the parent maybe?
  
  --
  Dark Reflection
4. Re:Different Parents by houghi · 2013-09-24 06:36 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  but that showing too much of a boob (or anything slightly sexual) will TOTALLY CORRUPT MY BABY!
  Well, obviously. Boobs and nipples especially are not intended for babies.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
5. Re:Different Parents by Hentes · 2013-09-24 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  I guess in both cases, the reaction depends on the amount and severity. The reason why violence appears to be treated less severely is simply that kids understand death sooner than they understand sex.
6. Re:Different Parents by Hatta · 2013-09-24 07:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  GTA could get its rating based solely on the amount of violence.
  GTA V is rated M. If it had included sex, it would be rated AO. How do we know this? Because GTA:SA was also rated M. When it was discovered that there was a hidden sex scene, which you had to modify the game to uncover, it was rerated AO.
  His point stands. Gratuitous violence is perceived as much less harmful than even non-explicit sex by those we are supposed to trust to make value judgements.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Don't worry mom, it's okay by TWiTfan · 2013-09-24 05:59 · Score: 4, Funny

No mom, this isn't one of those bad videogames. Trust me.

--
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Take away their licenses by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-24 06:00 · Score: 5, Funny

This type of irresponsible behaviour shouldn't be tolerated.
These so-called "parents" should have their parenting licenses revoked, and their children impounded and/or destroyed.
I can't believe I have to mention this by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-09-24 06:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

"With one breath, many parents criticize video games for being so violent, and with the next, they're saying 'thanks' at the counter after picking up these very games for their kids."
Are the same people saying both of these things? Or is it possible that "parents" includes millions of different people who feel differently about many things.
1. Re:I can't believe I have to mention this by SeaFox · 2013-09-24 06:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Also, it can't be possible these "parents buying the game with kids on tow" are buying the game for themselves never intending to let their child play it, too.
  Just like when a family is at the store and buys beer as part of their weekly grocery shopping -- they must be letting their children drink.
2. Re:I can't believe I have to mention this by cdrudge · 2013-09-24 06:27 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Logic and reasonable explanations have absolutely nothing to do with this knee jerk reactionary story. Please don't ever bring up these types of things again.
Rated ARRRRRGH! by steak · 2013-09-24 06:02 · Score: 2

This is the current equivalent of parents dumping their kids in rated R movies.

--
lose != loose
If it was only about sex and drugs maybe. by stewsters · 2013-09-24 06:02 · Score: 2

At least 10 percent of parents would take their kids to see Michelangelo's David given the chance, even though he is in the nude. A masterpiece is a masterpiece, and art often gets past people's filters.
1. Re:If it was only about sex and drugs maybe. by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-09-24 06:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  We still have people saying that Michelangelo's David is pornography.
2. Re:If it was only about sex and drugs maybe. by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-09-24 09:41 · Score: 2
  
  That's true, your first glance of the outside world comes from below the vulva, and after that you have your mom's titty mashed in your face for a year after you're born, and suddenly after that the mere sight of a titty or a vulva is supposedly so damaging to your mind that it'll cause you to torture cats and dogs and then grow up to become an axe murderer pedophile rapist.
  
  --
  Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Not caring != not knowing by KiloByte · 2013-09-24 06:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'd say parents know about ratings -- in fact, they know not only about their existence but also quality. And, especially, relevance.
In other words, they don't give a f...
If your children hasn't seen enough porn already, I pity both you and your offspring, as this means you keep them in a cage.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
1. Re:Not caring != not knowing by geekoid · 2013-09-24 06:06 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, we should have 12 years of watching torture porn.
  You're statement is clueless and so vague as to lose all meaning.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:Not caring != not knowing by Qybix · 2013-09-24 09:04 · Score: 2
  
  So true dood...
  The idea that people, or even children, need to be shielded from topics that surround us everyday in reality is ludicrous. The jury is STILL out on whether violent games cause violent behavior but if my experience can be humbly included it does not. It's a choice people gleefully want to take away from us for no other reason than exercising power over us.
  Turning the world Micky Mouse does not help anyone and simply annoys me. I am reminded of a quote from Demolition Man:
  Edgar Friendly: That's right. You see, according to *Cacteau's* plan. *I'm* the enemy. Because I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who would sit in the greasy spoon and think "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the big rack of Barbecued spare ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I *want* high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon, butter and buckets of cheese alright? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinatti in a non-smoking section. I wanna run around naked with green jell-o all over my body reading a Playboy magazine. Why? Because maybe I feel the need to okay pal? I've *seen* the future, you know what it is. It's made by a 47 year-old virgin in gray pajamas soaking in a bubble bath, drinking a broccoli milkshake and thinking "I'm an Oscar-Meyer Wiener". You wanna live on top, you gotta live Cacteau's way. What he wants, when he wants, how he wants. Your other option: come down here, maybe starve to death.
  Qybixxx
  
  --
  Qybix ----- I do not have a belief system; I'm an Anti-theist and proud of it! Saying that not believing in anything i
Logical fallacy by Xtifr · 2013-09-24 06:03 · Score: 5, Informative

The fact that someone bought the game while accompanied by a child does not mean they're buying it for the child. My brother often takes his kids to the game store, and and may buy game for himself or for his kids. Or, frequently, both.
That said, yes, there probably a lot of people too clueless to realize that the one game that is probably the most famous of all games in the world for not being for kids isn't for kids. But trying to estimate the number of people in that category by counting the number of people who happen to buy it while having a child in tow is just as clueless, in quite another way.
1. Re:Logical fallacy by jittles · 2013-09-24 06:17 · Score: 2
  
  The fact that someone bought the game while accompanied by a child does not mean they're buying it for the child. My brother often takes his kids to the game store, and and may buy game for himself or for his kids. Or, frequently, both.
  That said, yes, there probably a lot of people too clueless to realize that the one game that is probably the most famous of all games in the world for not being for kids isn't for kids. But trying to estimate the number of people in that category by counting the number of people who happen to buy it while having a child in tow is just as clueless, in quite another way.
  Agreed that it is a fallacy but... I have seen the child pick them game out and say "(Parental Unit) buy me this one." And they do. Without question. Without even looking at the box. When the local Blockbuster was about to close due to bankruptcy I went in to frantically spend a gift card. While there, I saw a 6 year old child pick out Saints Row and the mother bought it without question. I can't imagine ever letting a 6 year old play that game.
2. Re:Logical fallacy by umafuckit · 2013-09-24 06:31 · Score: 2
  
  The fact that someone bought the game while accompanied by a child does not mean they're buying it for the child.
  Not for sure, no, but it seems pretty likely. If you don't want your kid to play a game then it seems like a pretty dumb idea to take them to store, allow them to watch you buy it, and then tell them they can't play it. By far the best thing is to buy it on sly and never let them know you have it.
  
  --
  soylentnews.org
This is an outrage. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-24 06:04 · Score: 5, Funny

What we need is a law forcing parents to raise their kids the way I think they should be raised.
Cluebat by geekoid · 2013-09-24 06:05 · Score: 2

parents aren't a hive mind.
Sheesh.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
1. Re:Cluebat by geek · 2013-09-24 06:12 · Score: 2
  
  parents aren't a hive mind.
  Sheesh.
  Exactly. The article almost lays blame on "parents" here, assuming all parents do this. I'd say 10% is pretty good considering how fucked up society is right now. There are some places where greater than 50% of the kids drop out of school due to a real life version of GTA because their parents don't care or even actively encourage them. I'll take 10% on a make believe GTA any day.
  I have no intention of letting my son play games like this. I'd rather he went outside and played sports instead. But regardless, even if the rate was 1%, that 1% will still interact with the other 99% and the 99% will be exposed to it on one level or another. Bottom line is simple, be a parent, and look after your kids. You can't protect them from life.
2. Re:Cluebat by PRMan · 2013-09-24 09:21 · Score: 2
  
  And why is that? What causes some societies to be more violent than others? Is it the acceptability of violence in society? If so, wouldn't the acceptance of gratuitous violence in the media ultimately turn into a negative?
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Overlap? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-24 06:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

And what percentage of those 100 copies solid were to parents that complain about this stuff? The two are not necessarily the same subset, they could even be entirely disjoint or minuscule in overlap.
Some parents have faith in the maturity of their children. Some are of course just stupid.
Two groups of parents by MDillenbeck · 2013-09-24 06:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

As people have already pointed out, the parents who complain about violent video games are not the same parents as those buying it. However, when one parent buys it for their kids and another doesn't, it brings about the issue of loaning the game or going over to the other child's house to play it. Unfortunately, it should not be the responsibility of the industry or the government to censor or ban these types of games - it is still the responsibility of the parent wanting to restrict their child from the game to raise them in a manner where they not only avoid purchasing it but instill in their child a willingness to abide by their restrictions. Alas, many parents do not want to go this extra mile and fulfill their duties as a parent. (Yes, I know it is hard - but just as life is not fair, parenting isn't easy.)
Judgement by TechyImmigrant · 2013-09-24 06:10 · Score: 2

There's sex and drugs and crime everywhere on the internets.
Don't try to protect your children from all the evil out there. They're going to find it sooner or later. Teach your children judgement. They'll be needing it.

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Re:I'm a little confused about GTA 5 by H0p313ss · 2013-09-24 06:22 · Score: 2

Not sure if this is insightful or trolling, but what the hell.
This is 2013, torture and violence is as now as American as apple pie, but biology is still taboo.

--
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Re:So? by TWiTfan · 2013-09-24 06:24 · Score: 2

It matters because I don't want my kid exposed to the world of evil shitheels before she's old enough to realize that it's not a good thing to be an evil shitheel. I want her to be old enough to have a foundation in decency before she's introduced to the world of indecency. I don't want her introduced to crime before she's old enough to understand that crime has consequences. That's called "good parenting," (as opposed to "shit parenting") of course.

--
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Re:I'm a little confused about GTA 5 by Oronar · 2013-09-24 06:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because graphic violence only gets a game an M rating. Full nudity and sex automatically get a game an AO (Adult Only) rating. Most retailers refuse to stock AO games and getting an AO rating is effectively a death sentence for a console game since the only place you'd be able to sell them is the Internet and smaller stores. If you want big sales your game has to be sold in Walmart, Toys R Us, Gamestop etc.

--
1 4/\/\ 1337
Re:I'm a little confused about GTA 5 by Adult+film+producer · 2013-09-24 06:34 · Score: 2

Not trolling.. I was just at Saphire's place about 20 minutes before posting this and I felt very disappointed. It's funny at the strip club I was "raining down" dollar bills and the two strippers never took their clothes off. Like, seriously? We get to torture someone but we're not allowed to see nudity ?!?!

I had to take my character into a private room to see some tits. And that was it.... The really funny part is when I bought the game the girl at Gamespot warned my wife & I not to play this in front of children because there was full frontal nudity and other "horrid" things that they shouldn't see.... I'm still waiting for the full frontal nudity.. LOL. Maybe that has to be unlocked?
Re:I wouldn't be so sure. by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-09-24 06:39 · Score: 4, Funny

And BOY do they get mad if they happen to see something like "High School of the Dead" or "Queen's Blade".
Hmmm..... by ogdenk · 2013-09-24 06:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

I let my 3 kids play the GTA series. I even taught them how to fire REAL guns.
Yet they have never committed a violent act against another human being. Because they know video games are entertainment and fantasy. And they know the devastating power of real firearms and their intended purpose. They also know the value of human life and that violence is a desperate last resort.
They also know that if it ever comes to violence.... you need to be able to dish it out effectively and win.
Ya see.... I don't need the ESRB or the government telling me how I should raise my own kids. I'll raise them how I see fit and society can f**k off. I really don't care about the opinion of the masses of panicky, scared, arrogant, pompous mothers with extra cash to throw at lobbyists and "ratings boards". As far as I'm concerned they'd be better off spending all that cash on booze and choking on their own vomit.
They can shelter their kids to the point of being useless, "entitled", drooling retards but the second they try to force their views upon me, we have a problem. Oh... and for the record.... my kids are straight A students with a great interest in the Sciences and History. They also happen to like mowing down prostitutes in GTA for amusement after their homework is finished.
Re:I wouldn't be so sure. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-24 06:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Clearly that's just japanese tentacle porn, it doesn't count.
Show them Grave of the Fireflies.
Wait.. What? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2013-09-24 06:49 · Score: 2

Are you trying to tell me that some parents... are not good ... at being parents?!? Or maybe some parents believe different things are ok for their kids than other parents?!?
In related news, Americans hate republicans, but on the other hand some Americans vote for republicans? What can be done to solve this mysterious behavior by Americans? Clearly, this could be interpreted as a problem.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Get off my lawn! by nbauman · 2013-09-24 06:55 · Score: 2

Why don't parents read Grimm's fairy tales to their children the way we used to do?
Re:So? by TWiTfan · 2013-09-24 06:56 · Score: 2

My daughter snuck and watched a horror movie one night on TV. She had nightmares for two weeks. Bullshit it doesn't have an effect. Just because you can let your kid do something doesn't mean you should.

--
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Re:Accompanied by a child? by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2013-09-24 08:43 · Score: 2

Yes, those of us who are single parents will take our kids to EB to buy GTA:V then the liquor store to buy beer.
ALL THESE THINGS ARE FOR DAD
I had a daydream where I came home from work, and the kids were there playing GTA: Legacies (or whatever it'll be in 5-6 years) and I bust them. I look at the screen, look at them, say, "you drive like shit, shove over." then going through the ambulance missions.
"I've been playing this since before you were born."

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.