everyone should be able to shoot everything.

[Captain Del]

Originally Posted by Swash

Slouyx if you see a kid that has been influenced by a video game, JUST THE VIDEO GAME, not online interactions, then please recommend them to a therapist as any person who can comprehend right from wrong will not become influenced by video games. An example for you: I play Grand Theft Auto and I know a large handful of people who do, yet we aren't stealing cars from people, talking trash, or commiting any other crimes. My conclusion is that anyone who knows that Video games are not the real world, will not be influenced by a video game. ( And kids who have game related b-day parties or wear game related Halloween costumes don't count. )

So your saying that based on how you act, you can say that your actions represent the broad majority of children?

I have met children in this game as young as 6 years old. SIX. Would you be willing to give your six-year-old child your bills and ask them to pay your taxes? Would you be willing to give them a pocket full of cash and tell them to spend it on veggies, and then walk away? Would you give your six year old a bottle of poison?

What I'm getting as, there are children out there that have NEVER been taught right from wrong, are allowed to do whatever they want, and get away without knowing consequences might exist (Supernanny scenarios don't exist just on TV.) If we let kids shoot people in game, and in turn, they are REWARDED, then what would happen?

"Hey, daddy has one of those thingys! I can go use that like the pirates!"

Not every family is a perfect little clan, where everybody is responsible and cares for each other. So, we can't treat it as such.

[/soapbox]

[Swash]

Originally Posted by Captain Del

So your saying that based on how you act, you can say that your actions represent the broad majority of children?

I have met children in this game as young as 6 years old. SIX. Would you be willing to give your six-year-old child your bills and ask them to pay your taxes? Would you be willing to give them a pocket full of cash and tell them to spend it on veggies, and then walk away? Would you give your six year old a bottle of poison?

What I'm getting as, there are children out there that have NEVER been taught right from wrong, are allowed to do whatever they want, and get away without knowing consequences might exist (Supernanny scenarios don't exist just on TV.) If we let kids shoot people in game, and in turn, they are REWARDED, then what would happen?

"Hey, daddy has one of those thingys! I can go use that like the pirates!"

Not every family is a perfect little clan, where everybody is responsible and cares for each other. So, we can't treat it as such.

[/soapbox]

Why should Disney care about 6 year olds playing this game? It's rated E-10 which means if a 6 year old sees a pirate shooting a Navy soldier and their mom or dad doesn't like it and tries to sue they'd automatically lose just because of the rating saying all content is directed to people ages 10+. Most if not all 10 year olds know what happens when you shoot someone and a large amount of them have shot an animal such as a deer, duck, squirrel, etc. That being said Disney is not responsible for a 9 year old or younger seeing something bad on this game. They are only responsible for the age group of 10+.

[Captain Del]

Originally Posted by Swash

Why should Disney care about 6 year olds playing this game? It's rated E-10 which means if a 6 year old sees a pirate shooting a Navy soldier and their mom or dad doesn't like it and tries to sue they'd automatically lose just because of the rating saying all content is directed to people ages 10+. Most if not all 10 year olds know what happens when you shoot someone and a large amount of them have shot an animal such as a deer, duck, squirrel, etc. That being said Disney is not responsible for a 9 year old or younger seeing something bad on this game. They are only responsible for the age group of 10+.

So it's ok if an accident happens, as long as somebody under the age of 6 was involved? This isn't a matter of lawsuits, this is a matter of caring about the well being of CHILDREN.

And no, I''ve never met somebody who is under the age of 7, and gone hunting. That's a very vulnerable age to be shooting something, IMO.

P.S. I'm sorry if this seems like a direct rant, but I'm just trying to get a point across.

[ex8404]

Originally Posted by Swash

Why should Disney care about 6 year olds playing this game? It's rated E-10 which means if a 6 year old sees a pirate shooting a Navy soldier and their mom or dad doesn't like it and tries to sue they'd automatically lose just because of the rating saying all content is directed to people ages 10+. Most if not all 10 year olds know what happens when you shoot someone and a large amount of them have shot an animal such as a deer, duck, squirrel, etc. That being said Disney is not responsible for a 9 year old or younger seeing something bad on this game. They are only responsible for the age group of 10+.

So...no one under 17 has ever played GTA because of it's rating? The argument that ratings alone absolves Disney from lawsuits doesn't hold water. Even if they won a lawsuit, the damage is done.

Del's points are valid and well delivered.

[Swash]

Originally Posted by ex8404

So...no one under 17 has ever played GTA because of it's rating? The argument that ratings alone absolves Disney from lawsuits doesn't hold water. Even if they won a lawsuit, the damage is done.

Del's points are valid and well delivered.

But it's not Disney's fault. If the child is under the age of 10 while playing this game then it's the parents fault for anything the child sees. Also I didn't say no one under the age of 17 has played GTA, nor did I say no one under the age of 10 has played this because for one thing the ESRB ratings aren't the law, they are recomendations.

[Florence]

well dont you think if we would be able to use guns on navy soliders and undead, it would be easier to defeat them?

[Swash]

Originally Posted by Florence

well dont you think if we would be able to use guns on navy soliders and undead, it would be easier to defeat them?

Why would it be? If a grenade can't defeat a Navy soldier in one explosion then it will take several shots to defeat them

[Davy Keelhawk]

Originally Posted by Swash

Why would it be? If a grenade can't defeat a Navy soldier in one explosion then it will take several shots to defeat them

Also, building on that, wouldn't it take the same amount of swings of a sword to down a General or a Private?

[Swash]

Originally Posted by Davy Keelhawk

Also, building on that, wouldn't it take the same amount of swings of a sword to down a General or a Private?

Not really, as the NPC is given a certain amount of health and a private would be given about 10 hp while the General is going to be given 1000.

[ex8404]

Originally Posted by Swash

But it's not Disney's fault. If the child is under the age of 10 while playing this game then it's the parents fault for anything the child sees. Also I didn't say no one under the age of 17 has played GTA, nor did I say no one under the age of 10 has played this because for one thing the ESRB ratings aren't the law, they are recomendations.

That was my point. Very few follow the ESRB recommendations. Even if Disney isn't at fault, a lawsuit would damage their reputation.

[Swash]

I'm not saying they don't care about them, I'm saying they aren't responsible for them.

[Tiberius Fireskull]

I agree. If Disney ever got into a court case, it would look bad for them, even if they won the case. Seriously, nobody follows game ratings. I've seen 4th graders playing games that are Rated M. Now, there is something else you should look at with ratings. In my opinion, with the exception of the AO rating, they should be more based on maturity rather than age. If you can have a mature ten year old playing T rated games, then in my opinion at least, there is nothing wrong with that. On that same note, if we have some crazy, immature 15 year old playing a T rated game that may take his papa's gun out and go a shootin', thats bad.

In my opinion, if you are mature enough to handle something, then play it, otherwise you shouldn't.

Sorry, I think I strayed a bit there, just wanted to state my opinion.

[Swash]

Originally Posted by Davy Fireskull

I agree. If Disney ever got into a court case, it would look bad for them, even if they won the case. Seriously, nobody follows game ratings. I've seen 4th graders playing games that are Rated M. Now, there is something else you should look at with ratings. In my opinion, with the exception of the AO rating, they should be more based on maturity rather than age. If you can have a mature ten year old playing T rated games, then in my opinion at least, there is nothing wrong with that. On that same note, if we have some crazy, immature 15 year old playing a T rated game that may take his papa's gun out and go a shootin', thats bad.

In my opinion, if you are mature enough to handle something, then play it, otherwise you shouldn't.

Sorry, I think I strayed a bit there, just wanted to state my opinion.

This is a great point. But also it wouldn't hurt Disney's rep bad enough to make them lose any serious money. Also people do follow game ratings. No game store will sell you T rated game unless your 13 or have a parent, 17 or parent for M, and 18 or parent for AO.

[Tiberius Fireskull]

Yes, or have a parent. Parents let their 4th graders have M games. Same with T. Nobody follows game ratings, at least where I live.

[metal1081]

it wouldn't kick the rating up much unless they added major blood to it, E games got violence in them most games now a days do it's commen sense now that most kids want the most violent video games