4 ms·

I wish they all go broke, 95% of the games whoever produced are mental drugs to the society, especially to young kids. I hope one day that most games are illeg

by ausjke 13y ago

I wish they all go broke, 95% of the games whoever produced are mental drugs to the society, especially to young kids. I hope one day that most games are illegal, just like the drugs. If you have kids, you know what I mean.

angersock 13y ago
Maybe people should try parenting instead of letting their kids play games? Or giving them cell phones? Computer gaming is a hugely important industry, and the reason that we even have powerful computers and graphics cards today. You need to defend your opinion a bit more if you want it treated as anything other than that, an opinion.
- ausjke 13y ago
  My kids rarely play games, but I have seen too many kids doing that these days, obsessively. one reason there are less boys in college than girls, guess what, games. I actually read this somewhere. My piano teacher, whose two kids are still at home playing games, at their 20s. You don't just blame drug abusers, you do also blame the drug dealers. In _most_ cases, game designers are doing the same thing as a drug dealer who sells the drug, wearing an IT hat. Parenting can not do this alone when gaming is now becoming a culture/fashion/addictive, due to our genius developers.
  - pknight 13y ago
    Games are a way to play. Life without play is = devoid of joy. You can get play from lots of different things (work/music/improv etc), but it's human nature to want to play. Games are a part of culture, just like music is. Music serves no intrinsic utilitarian purpose. You wouldn't want to cut a person of culture any less you would want a person to never listen to music. Of course, anything in excess tends to be bad. And some games are engineered in diabolical ways and only live to make money. But games in an of itself are a natural and important part of a normal human beings life. And in this generation, computer games are.
    - ausjke 13y ago
      This comparison is a brush that is too wide. We do play games, such as board games, pokers, chess, some math related flash games. I'm saying _most_ games are too addictive(especially for kids) and are money-driving.
      - gambiting 13y ago
        But kids can get addicted to anything - alcohol, cigarettes, sex, skateboarding, nail biting, abstract painting, classical music, or yes, video games. It's your role as a parent to regulate how much time they can spend on activities, and if your kids get "addicted" then it's your own fault, not the child's. Most games are rated for adults - that means only adults should play them. And those that are not - it's still the parent's responsibility that they are used in moderation. In some countries you can give your kid alcohol legally at the age of 14 - that doesn't mean that you can legally get your children black out drunk - there is moderation required in everything.
        ausjke 13y ago
        violent adult games are also cancers to the society. that's another topic. As parents we're doing our best, I'm just saying gaming is in the most part, a bad thing, I'm not saying every game is bad, as some drugs are useful for medical reasons too. it's a shame to compare most games to music and painting, that does not make the game industry looks artistic in any way. it's more in the ballpark of alcohol, cigars and drugs, yes they're all popular, same as games, but they do not get the positive images in the society, games should be treated the same. Games do not deserve anything more positive than drugs, again, for the most part in general. I am fine to be down voted to zero, though I hope some of you game developers know that, there are other ways to make a living than being a game developer. I'm interested in knowing, in general, how games help kids, teenagers, even adults to be a better person to the society, by reading more, working harder, be less voilent, and staying touch with the real world? There are indeed some good games, again for the most part, they're the opposite.
  - socialist_coder 13y ago
    Your tinfoil hat is on too tight.
- bendmorris 13y ago
  >Maybe people should try parenting instead of letting their kids play games? Or giving them cell phones? I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but this seems like a strange false dilemma. Kids shouldn't only play games, but there's nothing wrong with letting your kids play them in moderation. It certainly doesn't make you a bad parent, quite the opposite. Many games can improve critical thinking ability. I discovered programming as a kid out a desire to make games. If I hadn't been allowed to play them, I wouldn't be where I am today. Good parents should let their kids play games.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    > I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but this seems like a strange false dilemma. The conversation is more complicated than you realize. At level 1, there exist many parents who, for whatever reason, purchase gadgets for their kids as a means of distraction. Video games, cell phones, etc. This is generally a result of poor decision-making and life circumstance. (Mother died and dad is trying to pick up the slack; hospital bills crippled their finances and they're exhausted after coming home from their third job; work is more important, they weren't really interested in having kids anyways; etc.) Really, this should be level 0, but the exact reason isn't relevant. At level 2 is people like ausjke, who look at this and see a lot of kids who are utterly absorbed and addicted. They respond to this by swinging the pendulum as far as possible to the other side. Don't be like those kids; they make their parents look bad. To an extent, they have a point: LED screens are very captivating, no matter what's playing on them. But at the end of the day, it's an overreaction. At level 3, you have angersock, who can see as far down as level 1 and blames the parents. They're not wrong, per se, because the issue at hand is at level 2. If parents paid more attention, then the kids would play in moderation rather than excessively. It tends to be unheard because people at level 2, like ausjke, are pretty self-righteous about how they themselves have parented or were parented. But as ausjke says, there is a surprisingly good analogy here in drugs. That is, the problem with drugs has nothing to do with drugs and everything to do with societal demonization, power struggles between classes, poor legislation, and economic consequences. He says we ought to blame the drug dealers, but he never asks where they get the drugs and more importantly why they bother at all. It's a conversation that's been tread over and over and over again. It's not a false dilemma; it's a call-and-response routine.

by ausjke 13y ago

angersock 13y ago

Maybe people should try parenting instead of letting their kids play games? Or giving them cell phones? Computer gaming is a hugely important industry, and the reason that we even have powerful computers and graphics cards today. You need to defend your opinion a bit more if you want it treated as anything other than that, an opinion.

ausjke 13y ago
My kids rarely play games, but I have seen too many kids doing that these days, obsessively. one reason there are less boys in college than girls, guess what, games. I actually read this somewhere. My piano teacher, whose two kids are still at home playing games, at their 20s. You don't just blame drug abusers, you do also blame the drug dealers. In _most_ cases, game designers are doing the same thing as a drug dealer who sells the drug, wearing an IT hat. Parenting can not do this alone when gaming is now becoming a culture/fashion/addictive, due to our genius developers.
- pknight 13y ago
  Games are a way to play. Life without play is = devoid of joy. You can get play from lots of different things (work/music/improv etc), but it's human nature to want to play. Games are a part of culture, just like music is. Music serves no intrinsic utilitarian purpose. You wouldn't want to cut a person of culture any less you would want a person to never listen to music. Of course, anything in excess tends to be bad. And some games are engineered in diabolical ways and only live to make money. But games in an of itself are a natural and important part of a normal human beings life. And in this generation, computer games are.
  - ausjke 13y ago
    This comparison is a brush that is too wide. We do play games, such as board games, pokers, chess, some math related flash games. I'm saying _most_ games are too addictive(especially for kids) and are money-driving.
    - gambiting 13y ago
      But kids can get addicted to anything - alcohol, cigarettes, sex, skateboarding, nail biting, abstract painting, classical music, or yes, video games. It's your role as a parent to regulate how much time they can spend on activities, and if your kids get "addicted" then it's your own fault, not the child's. Most games are rated for adults - that means only adults should play them. And those that are not - it's still the parent's responsibility that they are used in moderation. In some countries you can give your kid alcohol legally at the age of 14 - that doesn't mean that you can legally get your children black out drunk - there is moderation required in everything.
      - ausjke 13y ago
        violent adult games are also cancers to the society. that's another topic. As parents we're doing our best, I'm just saying gaming is in the most part, a bad thing, I'm not saying every game is bad, as some drugs are useful for medical reasons too. it's a shame to compare most games to music and painting, that does not make the game industry looks artistic in any way. it's more in the ballpark of alcohol, cigars and drugs, yes they're all popular, same as games, but they do not get the positive images in the society, games should be treated the same. Games do not deserve anything more positive than drugs, again, for the most part in general. I am fine to be down voted to zero, though I hope some of you game developers know that, there are other ways to make a living than being a game developer. I'm interested in knowing, in general, how games help kids, teenagers, even adults to be a better person to the society, by reading more, working harder, be less voilent, and staying touch with the real world? There are indeed some good games, again for the most part, they're the opposite.
- socialist_coder 13y ago
  Your tinfoil hat is on too tight.
bendmorris 13y ago
>Maybe people should try parenting instead of letting their kids play games? Or giving them cell phones? I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but this seems like a strange false dilemma. Kids shouldn't only play games, but there's nothing wrong with letting your kids play them in moderation. It certainly doesn't make you a bad parent, quite the opposite. Many games can improve critical thinking ability. I discovered programming as a kid out a desire to make games. If I hadn't been allowed to play them, I wouldn't be where I am today. Good parents should let their kids play games.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but this seems like a strange false dilemma. The conversation is more complicated than you realize. At level 1, there exist many parents who, for whatever reason, purchase gadgets for their kids as a means of distraction. Video games, cell phones, etc. This is generally a result of poor decision-making and life circumstance. (Mother died and dad is trying to pick up the slack; hospital bills crippled their finances and they're exhausted after coming home from their third job; work is more important, they weren't really interested in having kids anyways; etc.) Really, this should be level 0, but the exact reason isn't relevant. At level 2 is people like ausjke, who look at this and see a lot of kids who are utterly absorbed and addicted. They respond to this by swinging the pendulum as far as possible to the other side. Don't be like those kids; they make their parents look bad. To an extent, they have a point: LED screens are very captivating, no matter what's playing on them. But at the end of the day, it's an overreaction. At level 3, you have angersock, who can see as far down as level 1 and blames the parents. They're not wrong, per se, because the issue at hand is at level 2. If parents paid more attention, then the kids would play in moderation rather than excessively. It tends to be unheard because people at level 2, like ausjke, are pretty self-righteous about how they themselves have parented or were parented. But as ausjke says, there is a surprisingly good analogy here in drugs. That is, the problem with drugs has nothing to do with drugs and everything to do with societal demonization, power struggles between classes, poor legislation, and economic consequences. He says we ought to blame the drug dealers, but he never asks where they get the drugs and more importantly why they bother at all. It's a conversation that's been tread over and over and over again. It's not a false dilemma; it's a call-and-response routine.