At about 12 my friend bought D2 for me and I quickly got into the game. One day my parents find the game case lying around and wanted me to get rid of it because it was a portrait of a demon on the front cover. Even to this day I feel like they were worried over nothing, and it was ridiculous of them to even think that somehow I should stay away from a demonic figure in a game.
All the things you see and hear in school from other kids is way worse.
Oh and by the way, that's really cute that she can play D3. I got my sister - also 9 - to give it a try but she's more into that club penguin and dress up doll kind of games. Her attention span didn't last long in it.
Show her how you can "dress up" your character and even dye the clothes. Success guaranteed if you play your cards right ^^ (Side effect is she will walk around in lv 5 gear because it looks better than a lv 40 armor)
Diablo's dye system can never compete with dress up dolls games
Age has nothing to do with playing an M rated game. Maturity is a much more reasonable measure by which you can gauge someones readiness to play an M rated game. Violent games do not incite aggressive behaviors in a child or adult unless they have a pre-existing condition or a mental incapacity to understand that this is fictional and doing this is real life is wrong.
Complete and utter bullshit. It's been proven to be the exact opposite.
I was playing Turok on the N64 when I was younger than this and I've not mass murdered anyone. And to anyone that's interested the "Scientific Studies" that have tried to link violent video games to violent children are all inconclusive, at least the ones from the conservative biased media. All the tests done by impartial Scientists have actually showed that violent video games act as a stress release, and lessen your violent behavior.
I don't understand why people are getting upset over this... I played Diablo 1 when I was 6, "back in the day" Diablo 1 was crazier than Diablo 3 is right now (It's not as dark) and a rating is only something overprotective parents care about IMO. A parent can teach his child that his in-game behavior should in-game behaviors and to not bring them to the real world.
I would modify that and say LAZY parents. Over protective parents rarely rely on a rating. I just wasn't allowed to play games growing up without regard for ratings that were invented at that point. Otherwise, I concur.
Doom, ROTT, and Duke Nukem. Played all of them when I was younger then 7. I think she'll be ok going forward. This game has nothing on those in terms of gore or nudity. Props to her for being further than me!
It's not the game I would worry about. It's the little foul mouthed idiots in pub games I would keep an eye on.
It's funny how many folks would have a problem letting their kid play a silly game like this but then they'll take them to church and teach them stories about a "loving" God (that they're forced to worship), a God whom murdered countless thousands of innocent people, first born sons and even tormented and tortured a man whom was good and loved his God, just to prove a point to Satan about faith.
Age has nothing to do with playing an M rated game. Maturity is a much more reasonable measure by which you can gauge someones readiness to play an M rated game. Violent games do not incite aggressive behaviors in a child or adult unless they have a pre-existing condition or a mental incapacity to understand that this is fictional and doing this is real life is wrong.
Complete and utter bullshit. It's been proven to be the exact opposite.
Really? Can you site a specific study that has shown causal evidence of video game subject matter influencing developmental outcomes towards violence? If you're going to claim proof, I'd love to see where it came from. It sure sounds like you conflating soft science correlation with hard science causality to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I grew up gaming without internet forums. The entire phenomenon of being upset with a game developer makes no sense to me. No sense. I cannot imagine spending my time and energy being upset about something I choose to do for recreation.
No offense to anyone here personally, but, if you don't have your own kids, you're just parroting stuff you've seen on the news, and don't really have to make the decision like the OP did. Until you're in his shoes, you really don't get it.
Games don't cause anything negative if the parents do their job right; i.e. the kid knows the difference between reality and a game/fantasy. If the parents fail their kids badly, then you have Columbine. (I know, extreme example)
As in the example the guy talked about with the one movie in UK vs Sweden, breasts don't harm children, either.
So, the ratings don't really work right, anyway, because kids are different. I'm sure the OP's 9 year old can handle it, and my 9 year old can, too, but, I know others that simply aren't ready to separate the two worlds as well as they should.
Now, to go off on a tangent, I do wish my country (US) would be a little more Europe-like on movies. Instead of violence = no big deal, and sex=omg rate it high, they should be more like Sweden. Nudity isn't harmful, but the current atmosphere where people are taught that it is...is harmful in and of itself, imo. Oh well, enough derailment.
The only thing I can think of when I saw this is "does she really" play? Running around in an empty dungeon, TPing to town and looking at items doesn't really show that much.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing Diablo since 97. I know nothing and having nothing good to say, I be a troll.
All the things you see and hear in school from other kids is way worse.
Oh and by the way, that's really cute that she can play D3. I got my sister - also 9 - to give it a try but she's more into that club penguin and dress up doll kind of games. Her attention span didn't last long in it.
Complete and utter bullshit. It's been proven to be the exact opposite.
I would modify that and say LAZY parents. Over protective parents rarely rely on a rating. I just wasn't allowed to play games growing up without regard for ratings that were invented at that point. Otherwise, I concur.
It's funny how many folks would have a problem letting their kid play a silly game like this but then they'll take them to church and teach them stories about a "loving" God (that they're forced to worship), a God whom murdered countless thousands of innocent people, first born sons and even tormented and tortured a man whom was good and loved his God, just to prove a point to Satan about faith.
BurningRope#1322 (US~HC) Request an invite to the official (NA) <dfans> Clan
Really? Can you site a specific study that has shown causal evidence of video game subject matter influencing developmental outcomes towards violence? If you're going to claim proof, I'd love to see where it came from. It sure sounds like you conflating soft science correlation with hard science causality to me.
Games don't cause anything negative if the parents do their job right; i.e. the kid knows the difference between reality and a game/fantasy. If the parents fail their kids badly, then you have Columbine. (I know, extreme example)
As in the example the guy talked about with the one movie in UK vs Sweden, breasts don't harm children, either.
So, the ratings don't really work right, anyway, because kids are different. I'm sure the OP's 9 year old can handle it, and my 9 year old can, too, but, I know others that simply aren't ready to separate the two worlds as well as they should.
Now, to go off on a tangent, I do wish my country (US) would be a little more Europe-like on movies. Instead of violence = no big deal, and sex=omg rate it high, they should be more like Sweden. Nudity isn't harmful, but the current atmosphere where people are taught that it is...is harmful in and of itself, imo. Oh well, enough derailment.
I wish I could... no zoom/rotate in 2012 is a bit of a headscratcher, TBH.
Psst... the Z key