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

BruceVC

No

If people/parents are bothered about the games their children are playing all they have to do is set parental controls on their console.

Chickabiddybex

No

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Originally the question had no conditions other than them being supervised, it was simply would you allow a 6 year old to play the game as it is. Unfiltered. So allowing them to kill, see blood, drive around, volume up etc.

No I would not let a 6 year old play on this type of game. I think that it would scare them and confuse them (I am assuming they have not been exposed to major violence before, hence the confusion)

The bad language I would not want them to hear because they might repeat it at school for example and get into trouble.

I would imagine the drug use would go over their heads so I wouldn't be too concerned about that. But having a load of police officers chase them and then try to pull them out of the car and kill them... I think this would be scary for them.

Flyonthewall

No

BruceVC wrote: »

If people/parents are bothered about the games their children are playing all they have to do is set parental controls on their console.

If they don't know to look at a bright red (at least for 12 and above) symbol giving a clear age rating on every game, how an earth are they going to know that the console has parental controls?

Lip_Stick

I've posted in this thread before but I'd just add that I really don't think many parents would allow a child of 6 to be let loose without supervision on either of these games. I suppose you get the odd few who simply aren't bothered or who actively encourage their child to go on them, to play the cool parent with all their chavtastic friends.

I wouldn't allow a child to see the violence, hear the language or witness drug and sex themes that GTA offers.

Now I have allowed my son to go on Modern Warfare 2, split screen with me against him. Blood is minimal, there's no foul language, you don't see someone going through pain and suffering, you don't even see them bleeding. You see a cloud of dust, the person in the distance falls to the floor and then they're gone... back running around. He's seen a lot worse in the arcades at the seaside. If the game was rated on just this alone, and not the missions, the rating would be a lot lower. When you compare that to say, American wrestling and the violence in that, which a lot of children watch, (but it never gets talked about), I know what I'd prefer my son to be seeing on screen.

In response to Scorpio, I believe that a certain level of violence, i.e. super heros fighting for good reasons, isn't harmful, whereas children watching Hostel or Saw movies would turn out unhinged, particularly when the violence has sex involved too. GTA is obviously violence for the sake of it, so it's not going to do a child any good, but I'm not sure it's at a level that would turn a child into a psycho.

Mista_C

davehughes182 wrote: »

I wouldnt let a 6 year old play GTA and dont know anyone that would to be fair. I played the first GTA when it got released on PC and I was 12 (i think) at that stage but it was not graphic and had no sexual themes to it at all.

Indeed it did, just maybe not so obvious to your 12 year old self. Try crashing the car while driving Misty and her er... "personal trainer" to the hotel. You get an angry phone call from Misty's boss/pimp and in it he explains how the trainer is now in hospital with a particularly nasty injury.

davehughes182

No

Mista_C wrote: »

Indeed it did, just maybe not so obvious to your 12 year old self. Try crashing the car while driving Misty and her er... "personal trainer" to the hotel. You get an angry phone call from Misty's boss/pimp and in it he explains how the trainer is now in hospital with a particularly nasty injury.

I stand corrected :beer:

Obviously my 12 year old self didnt realise that! haha. Might have to replay the first GTA and see how it differs now im older and "wiser"

Sneezy

No

No absolutely not - I'm in my 20s and some of the detailed graphics in GTAIV are too much for me sometimes (even some of what is being said on the radio stations to the point where I have it on mute) - maybe it's because I'm a lady and I'm not immune to that sort of stuff. Having said that I have had GTA V on preorder since January.

One of my sisters friends has an almost five year old who came round with her mum whilst I was playing it and wanted a go - she had a go to the point where we were 'driving' very slowly being very careful making sure we didn't hurt/hit anything (which lasted for about 2 minutes before the ps3 had to go to sleep) - her mum said she plays Mario karts and crashes on that so it wouldn't have mattered as much to crash in GTA IV.

hemophobic

No

On San Andreas I've used the drive on water cheat and let my brother just drive around on the ocean. But I wouldn't let him play it properly. Even driving around slowly on the roads usually ends with a few casualties and a wanted level. (Or maybe its just my driving)

unholyangel

Lip_Stick wrote: »

Now I have allowed my son to go on Modern Warfare 2, split screen with me against him. Blood is minimal, there's no foul language, you don't see someone going through pain and suffering, you don't even see them bleeding. You see a cloud of dust, the person in the distance falls to the floor and then they're gone... back running around.

In response to Scorpio, I believe that a certain level of violence, i.e. super heros fighting for good reasons, isn't harmful, whereas children watching Hostel or Saw movies would turn out unhinged, particularly when the violence has sex involved too. GTA is obviously violence for the sake of it, so it's not going to do a child any good, but I'm not sure it's at a level that would turn a child into a psycho.

Personally, I'd say the first part isnt really a good thing. For one, if kids are really going to want to kill people etc merely by playing games that allows them to do so, they'll get a nasty shock when their real life victim doesnt respawn.

As for the 2nd part....I guess I must be unhinged then! I was allowed to watch horror movies from a very young age (somewhere between 4-6) and also played my dads games (duke nukem, doom etc) from a young age. To this day I've never been arrested or done anything that would warrant my arrest.

Also yet to hear from any source that playing adult games while underage is what turned psychos psycho. Games/films may provide inspiration to psychos, but they were already unbalanced to start with.

Thats not to say I agree a 6 yr old should be allowed to play CoD, GTA etc.....but we do let our 6 year old play 8-12 games depending on the individual game/content.

I dont like the nanny state britain has become. Particularly where children are concerned. People wonder why 20 year olds are still immature and irresponsible, its because they're babied even throughout their teenage years.

trets77

No

As an old timer gamer (40) i lived through all the stupid scare monger press stories of the 80's and 90's. As teenagers both me and my brother "wasted" our lives playing violent video games. Although i did not see it as wasting my time then and when i look back now i remember it as great times.

Neither me nor my brother grew up to be criminals or loners either. I strongly dispute any media scare mongering regarding teenagers playing these types of games.

BUT GTA and COD games are not suitable for six year olds...end of story.

GTA has some very adult themes that are perfectly fine for adults or adolescents IMO but not six year olds. similarly COD maybe only be animation but it is very graphic animation and the trash talk on the multi players is worse than you will hear in the roughest pubs in land.

there are so many good games that are suitable for six year old so why not stick to them.