![]() I just don't get how arguments against violence in video games lead to a deluge of "We have the ESRB, it's the parents' job to be aware of what their kids play!" and "Well I played violent games/watched violent movies when I was a kid, and I'm fine!" comments, yet when lootboxes are brought up, you then hear things like "Companies shouldn't be selling this stuff directly to kids!" and "You're going to turn people, and especially kids, into gambling addicts!" It's almost like the issue isn't the actual issue itself, it's the effects on the things that (primarily adult) gamers like. So maybe cooler heads would have prevailed after all? Oh, and the industry continued to make whatever the hell it wanted to make, leading to today's largely mature-focused mainstream gaming market, which is far less kid-friendly than it was back then.Ģ) The effect of violent games on our youth doesn't seem to be anywhere near as bad as the vocal critics had led us to believe. That brought about regulation of course, but nowadays it's obvious that:ġ) Those regulations (ESRB ratings) did absolutely nothing in the long run as far as violent games making their way into kids' hands, as (surprise) it's ultimately up to adults to be responsible in order for that to happen. I'm honestly having a hard time understanding the outrage about lootboxes, especially when a lot of the loudest arguments against them sound eerily similar to the old "violent games make people violent!" issue.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |