Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto: Would you let your 6 year old play?

Flyonthewall

No

WiggyDiggyPoo wrote: »

Mercenaries 2 - World in Flames

Its a little dated (not as dated as Simpsons Hit and Run though!) and rated Teen - yes its lots of shooting but its not that bloody and lot of the game is played for laughs. IIRC the game punishes you for killing non combatants/civilians.

Mercenaries 2 is a 16+ game. Amazon description refers to it as "Grand Theft Auto in a warzone". I've seen the trailer for the second (was a while ago though) and played part of the first - wouldn't think GTA myself from what I've seen/know of it but I haven't actually played that one so...

Chickabiddybex wrote: »

I would say Sleeping Dogs is a good GTA alternative. Not for VERY young kids as it is still pretty bad (it's a game about an undercover cop infiltrating a gang and there is plenty of killing etc) but I'd say its definitely toned down. For a kid not quite ready for GTA it's a good choice (I'm talking teenager appropriate)
A step younger from that, the Simpsons one is a good one. It depends what the appeal of GTA is and why the kid wants play it. Most likely because its popular! Posters everywhere, forbidden fruit, etc.
There are some awesome open world games out there that are suitable for kids. The Spider Man games are one example. Infamous is another.

Sleeping Dogs is an 18 so certainly not for kids.

I agree with there being a number of good open world games out there. Infamous is good, but it is also a 16+. Spiderman games vary in age from 7+ to 16 so are worth checking out, but do check the ratings if you don't want them playing a 16.

Paully232000

No

Simple answer, No.

DKLS

Definitely not, the content isn't appropriate at that age. There is plenty of choice of good games aimed at that age group to keep them busy.

DigForVictory

No.
We made a policy decision not to have that sort of entertainment available, at all, whilst first child a kicky bump.

Board games, card games (anyone for Poker?!), Scouting, painting, gluing, carving, model making, kiteflying & generally behaving like little hellions (of the 1950s) anyway reinforced that view, as did a lack of funds. (Conduct unbecoming, & language likewise, they can pick up on in school, and have firmly curbed at home.)

A decade later, we find they trigger epeileptic fits in the eldest.
No quarter ever offered, no regrets.

Flyonthewall

No

DigForVictory wrote: »

No.
We made a policy decision not to have that sort of entertainment available, at all, whilst first child a kicky bump.

Board games, card games (anyone for Poker?!), Scouting, painting, gluing, carving, model making, kiteflying & generally behaving like little hellions (of the 1950s) anyway reinforced that view, as did a lack of funds. (Conduct unbecoming, & language likewise, they can pick up on in school, and have firmly curbed at home.)

A decade later, we find they trigger epeileptic fits in the eldest.
No quarter ever offered, no regrets.

Fair enough if it causes fits, that's a perfectly good reason to stop them playing games. However, it sounds like you're suggesting it would make them misbehave if they'd been able to play them. Games don't make people violent/misbehave. Nor would it cause them to use bad language as there are plenty of games with no bad language in and you obviously stopped them using the words they heard anyway.

The second paragraph confused me...I'm tired and read it one way the first time and another way the second lol. Are you saying you only allowed them to do them type of activities or didn't allow them to do them either?

DigForVictory

Initially we said no games as we wanted them to do all the things in the second paragraph *instead*. Violence & misbehaviour they'll see on the streets, playground & news - it's our job as parents to discourage emulating that (within reason - three small boys will scuffle much as they breathe!).

Also, the gear is expensive - and forty quid on paint & glue & tissue & balsa etc goes a lot further than one game. (Literally - one of the chuck gliders nearly looped the church spire on the other side of the valley!)

Finally, we reinforced the no way when the eldest was diagnosed.
Games are great fun - just we prefer the sort without mains, cables & aching thumbs.

Flyonthewall

No

DigForVictory wrote: »

Initially we said no games as we wanted them to do all the things in the second paragraph *instead*. Violence & misbehaviour they'll see on the streets, playground & news - it's our job as parents to discourage emulating that (within reason - three small boys will scuffle much as they breathe!).

Also, the gear is expensive - and forty quid on paint & glue & tissue & balsa etc goes a lot further than one game. (Literally - one of the chuck gliders nearly looped the church spire on the other side of the valley!)

Finally, we reinforced the no way when the eldest was diagnosed.
Games are great fun - just we prefer the sort without mains, cables & aching thumbs.

Ah.

For £20 I could get a game with 100s of hours of gameplay. In fact, I bet I could get at least 2 games for £5 each that have at least 40 hours of gameplay each (not including any online play or replaying the game). Even including the system, I could get a console for £120 or less.

In fact, I have an old Amstrad game (which is also on Midway Arcade Treasures on PS2 and possibly GC and xbox) called Gauntlet that doesn't end. Wouldn't cost £40 to buy that, although I admit I have no idea how much the game and system would have cost new. Still, I have a working Amstrad and that game that basically never ends so even if it cost hundreds of pounds at the time for over 20 years of gameplay that's not bad going lol.

Gaming doesn't have to be expensive, nor does it have to involve violence or other adult themes or take up all your time.

Hardly any cables either, especially not with consoles now. Can't disagree with aching thumbs though if you play long enough lol.

hieveryone

Absolutely not.

I work with children and see on a daily basis the harm and damage that these games do to little children's minds.

Fantasy and reality are concepts which become intertwined in a young child's mind, so the argument that 'as long as you tell them it isn't real' is absolutely ludicrous.

Seriously, you should come to my workplace for a day and see the effects these types of games are having on children. They are storing up serious anger and mental health issues for the future.

Shame on you if you would allow a 6 year old to play!!

Flyonthewall

No

hieveryone wrote: »

Fantasy and reality are concepts which become intertwined in a young child's mind, so the argument that 'as long as you tell them it isn't real' is absolutely ludicrous.

I think kids have a sense of fantasy and reality. As a kid I knew the TV shows I watched weren't real and, later on, that the games I played weren't real.

Even playing with toys, they know the toys are real but, for example, kids know that a doll is not a real baby even if they treat it as one and if they push a toy car around the car is real but they know they're not really driving. I'm sure most kids would also understand that a real baby can not be thrown in a corner when you're no longer interested and that you can't grab the top of a real car and push it along.

I agree to a point. Telling them it's not real doesn't make it all ok, especially where adult themes are concerned. Even if they do understand it's not real it can still have an affect on them.

bachir10

thanks bro