Quote:
|
The discussion, debate - the point of the thread is that there are some video games (a generalization) - or broadly any media content - that has deleterious effects upon children. That's the point. Is it so difficult to concede that point? Evidently it is for those who love the most violent of them. (See many posts above).
|
The problem is that you're attempting to make this statement SO broad that it no longer has meaning. Yes, there are some video games out there that have no value whatsoever. Back in the day there was a video game where you played a Nazi and you got to shoot jews. But that one game (whose title I do not remember) does not represent the genre as a whole. That's like saying that some people are bad; it's a generalization that is so diluted it no longer has meaning.
This thread is not simply about admitting that there is a possibility that some video games may cause harm; it is about a group of individuals wanting the state to step in and ban a game because it makes you a hired assassin.
Having played and thoroughly enjoyed the entire Hitman series, I can say it has not affected me in a negative manner. I was entertained, and had the most fun playing in a manner that resulted in NO unnecessary deaths.
More importantly, these games are designed for adults. Most stores won't sell MA games to children, and parents are responsible for deciding what visual input is allowed. The state should not decide what adult material is suitable for child consumption; that's solely at the discretion of the parent.
So yes Art, some video games may have a negative effect on some children. So what? These games are not designed for children, the majority of gamers out there aren't children*, and most stores won't even sell these games to children. But politicians won't see that, and will take an admission by the gaming community as an excuse to ban video games.