What do you think the lowest age for Doom Eternal should be

[omx32x]

honestely i dont think age ratings should have been a thing in the first place

[D4NUK1]

6 hours ago, bofu said:

The mind can fill in a lot of blanks. And even the goriest glory kill in Doom Eternal doesn't really compare to the boss death in Episode 3 of Wolf3D.

¿Are you reaalllly sure about that?

[ApprihensivSoul]

I'm sure the gore in something like Doom is alot different to experience than something like Soldier of Fortune 2 or even the more violent CoD games, too. My dad was playing it with us at a very young age, like 5-6, and we still play all the Doom games around the family today. Mortal Kombat sometimes too, though there's other stuff in those so that's usually just since everyone became a teenager.

 

Like many people said, it's an individual parenting decision, but personally I don't think comical gore is in any way harmful to a kid who has proactive parenting. 

Then again we had to (sadly) put down more than a few animals throughout childhood, without the luxury of a vet, so we had plenty of more heartbreaking gore to contrast it with, and it really made it easy to tell what was real and what wasn't. And while that might not be objectively harmful, so to speak, either, it's certainly painful, and I would not wish it on everyone. So I would guess just educated parental involvement can be used for a good call, making sure the kid understands the difference between silliness and something actually traumatic. Every kid's gonna be different there, too.

[QuaketallicA]

I am no parent, so take this with a grain of salt. But my thoughts are, when it comes to M titles, I don't think gore/blood is that big of a deal. If that's the only reason it's M, like in Doom, then it might be okay, depending on the parent. I think foul language (swearing) would probably be a good reason to restrict access, particularly if you care about keeping the language clean for your kids. In that sense, I think the ESRB system is pretty accurate--mild tv level swearing is fine for all teens, and the R level stuff is...well R level. (or M in this case). Whether a teen is up to that is your call, but certainly anyone younger should probably not watch. The other big reason would be if there's anything excessively sexual about the game, also best to keep them from it until they're at the least teens/past puberty. Finally, if the story involves complex themes and it takes a more mature approach to understand the ethics in that scenario, something a kid is not ready to understand, then that would be another reason. A good example would be the infamous "No Russian" scene from MW2. While I don't think it's going to scar anybody or kids will suddenly think mass murder in an airport is cool, I do feel the level is quite shocking and disturbing--and intentionally so, they do warn you beforehand. It has to be shocking to justify the big war that follows, for sake of plot. But it might be hard to process as a kid. I also think there's something of a subtle political jab at CIA affairs in 3rd world countries ending horribly and coming back to bite us in the backside. Or the predecessor, CoD 4, really requires a certain understanding of the historical and geopolitical context surrounding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to really appreciate. Of course, on the other hand, these games were practically targeted at 10-12 year olds, and anything that can be boiled down to "good guy shoot the bad guy" will sell like hotcakes. So, maybe not. But I did feel playing through those campaigns that they were really not ideal for someone who wasn't a bit older.

 

On the flip side, there's lots of E and E10 games that I loved as a kid, but probably would not attract my interest now as an adult. Mario Galaxy and Zelda Ocarina of Time come to mind. Why not enjoy the stuff meant for kids when you are one, since you're not going to be interested in it at any other time anyway.

Edited December 15, 2021 by QuaketallicA

[QuaketallicA]

On 12/4/2021 at 1:36 AM, ApprihensivSoul said:

I'm sure the gore in something like Doom is alot different to experience than something like Soldier of Fortune 2 or even the more violent CoD games, too. My dad was playing it with us at a very young age, like 5-6, and we still play all the Doom games around the family today. Mortal Kombat sometimes too, though there's other stuff in those so that's usually just since everyone became a teenager.

 

Like many people said, it's an individual parenting decision, but personally I don't think comical gore is in any way harmful to a kid who has proactive parenting. 

Then again we had to (sadly) put down more than a few animals throughout childhood, without the luxury of a vet, so we had plenty of more heartbreaking gore to contrast it with, and it really made it easy to tell what was real and what wasn't. And while that might not be objectively harmful, so to speak, either, it's certainly painful, and I would not wish it on everyone. So I would guess just educated parental involvement can be used for a good call, making sure the kid understands the difference between silliness and something actually traumatic. Every kid's gonna be different there, too.

Really? I feel Doom/Quake are a lot gorier than Call of Duty, though I have not played World at War, which I've heard was particularly gory. But the CoD games I played only show a bit of a blood decal on the wall sometimes if you get a headshot, that's about it.

[QuaketallicA]

On 12/3/2021 at 4:28 PM, omalefico32x said:

honestely i dont think age ratings should have been a thing in the first place

They're not the law, they're an easy and useful way for parents to get an idea of what things of concern might be in the game, without having to actually play it themselves.

[ApprihensivSoul]

2 hours ago, QuaketallicA said:

Really? I feel Doom/Quake are a lot gorier than Call of Duty, though I have not played World at War, which I've heard was particularly gory. But the CoD games I played only show a bit of a blood decal on the wall sometimes if you get a headshot, that's about it.

 

I'm referring here to primarily the difference between cartoony violence vs simulated violence. The Black Ops series can easily be as gory as WaW, with constant dismemberment, but I'm referring to something else:

Even with something as minimal as bloodstains there's a difference between doing it to things that the artstyle in no way uses to reflect real humans or the way they would suffer damage (even Doom 3 exaggerates proportions and gibbing effects) vs trying to be as close to life-like as possible with the art direction as the technology allows. 

(EDIT) Point of this was just to clarify my point, sorry if it made it more confusing. 

Edited December 15, 2021 by ApprihensivSoul

[GratefulDeadInside]

On 11/29/2021 at 8:46 AM, Doomkid said:

I played Doom since age 3 and look how good I turned out!...

...

...

...

I think I accidentally just made an argument for not letting young kids play Doom...

You have a Frank Zappa pfp. I think you turned out just fine.

[Master O]

On 11/18/2021 at 6:55 AM, Martin-CAI said:

That being said, personally, I wouldn't say that Doom entail a real danger to children's minds, nor other games like it. Classic Doom has kind of the same amount of gore and violence and, hardly, a child that grew up playing it is nowadays, because of the game, a murderer or a psychopath.

 

You wouldn't know it, with the way US politicians routinely pile on violent video games at every opportunity, yet completely change the subject about the wars they send American men and women to fight and die in...

Edited December 15, 2021 by Master O

[omx32x]

On 12/15/2021 at 2:00 PM, QuaketallicA said:

They're not the law, they're an easy and useful way for parents to get an idea of what things of concern might be in the game, without having to actually play it themselves.

while i agree with you that still does not change my opinion on the subject

 

how about the fact that fake gambling and spending fake money make the age ratings go up but not real gambling and real money spending?

 

of course thats just one exemple but the ratings system is fucked pretty much everywhere and while they arent law in most places there are countries and states where they are

 

not to mention how some stores refuse to sell games over a specific age rating and we have lots of stories in the industry of game devs having to modify their games because the publisher wanted a game aimed at young adults to sell to pre-teens

 

and dont even get me started on the russian video games rating system that thing is a mess

[Nine Inch Heels]

On 12/2/2021 at 2:24 PM, Dubbag said:

Doesn't matter. It's just a game.

From a psychologist's POV (that being my actual profession) this is all sorts of wrong...

 

We can argue back and forth on how much sense age restrictions of particular countries may or may not make on an individual level - and get nowhere in the end, so it's not a talking point worth belabouring... Never mind that many countries treat these ratings as age-recommendations, which allows the parents of said children to have the final say on the matter anyway (which is for example why I don't have any issues with letting our son play classic doom, even though he's not even old enough to register to these forums. which would be less than 13 years)

 

However, the fact remains that many of those sometimes seemingly arbitrary restrictions (not all of which I happen to agree with, for the record, because politics tend to move slowly when it comes to "new media") have been put in place by people who know their trade way better than you do, which is to say that when in doubt, I'd defer to experts on the subject of psychological development of children and their respective judgment calls, rather than waving the ever so hollow "it's just a game, bruh" club around...

 

While I'm at it, if it's "just a game", or "just a movie", would you actually say the same when it comes to letting children watch porn, regardless of their age??? If so, that's an indefensible hill to die on and I think you know that...

[rzh]

Here's my thoughts on age-restrictions:

I started playing Hexen when I was 3 years old and now I have an interest in cryptography I am a functional adult. I also got fatality-ed in Mortal Kombat all the time by my older cousin at 4 years old.

Usually kids know what to avoid if it comes to violence/ horror, because every time I got scared I either asked someone older to play for me or I dropped the game entirely. That happened with Crysis when Aztec dies at the beginning of the game, it looked too realistic for me. Dogs also scared me, so I asked my uncle to play Call of Duty 4 with me because I hated the way they jumped on you in that game.

So for games like these, no age restriction should be set, but recommended guidelines are fine, if mostly useless.

However, porn games should be severely age-restricted and hidden from the front page of online stores now that they started appearing en-masse on Steam and GoG, by default. If it was up to me, I'd have them completely separated, but I guess the market decides.

Sexuality, even if fictional, has a much bigger impact on a child's brain than virtual violence (especially if cartoonish/ against monsters).

Fairy tales/ children bedtime stories usually have a boogeyman but no plumber for a reason.

Part of the reason is that violence is a lot more unpleasant in real life and also a lot more removed from day-to-day life. Your instincts also tell you that you need to avoid it. But having an unhealthy first contact with sexuality can cripple one's ability to have functional/ healthy relationships.

Edited December 17, 2021 by rzh

[Nine Inch Heels]

34 minutes ago, rzh said:

Usually kids know what to avoid if it comes to violence/ horror, because every time I got scared I either asked someone older to play for me or I dropped the game entirely.

This is A) anecdotal and B) projection...

 

You don't know how other kids "tick", not to mention that the reason many of those age-restricted games are on their respective lists is not just due to the violence the player actively participates in, but also due to content that, even if for example in a satirical manner, glorifies atrocities such as war crimes (admittedly not the case for Doom'16 or Doom Eternal, but if you're talking on a general scale, then you need to consider way more than just "guts and gory")... If I was worried that the admittedly cartoony way classic doom does violence was an actual problem I wouldn't let my son play it, but would I allow him to play DN3D..? Of course not, and for reasons similar to why I wouldn't allow him to play for example one of the more recent GTA instalments...

 

I happen to find it confusing that you yourself found a game scary enough that you had to find somebody to play it with you, only to then make the argument that no age restrictions for said game should be enacted... That makes "anti-sense", especially when the sentence "Dogs also scared me" (note the past tense there) implicitly means that you would have had a better experience with said game if you had played it at a later point in your life...

Edited December 17, 2021 by Nine Inch Heels

[rzh]

39 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

I happen to find it confusing that you yourself found a game scary enough that you had to find somebody to play it with you, only to then make the argument that no age restrictions for said game should be enacted... That makes "anti-sense", especially when the sentence "Dogs also scared me" (note the past tense there) implicitly means that you would have had a better experience with said game if you had played it at a later point in your life...

I believe that age restrictions should be imposed only if the content could have a negative, permanent impact on a child's psyche. I don't think there are that many, if any video games that could potentially traumatize a child for life.

 

And I would say that not getting scared is better than getting scared is something that is subjective, since retrospectively I find the experience much more memorable and enjoyable as a result. But then again, I'm stubborn in my attempt to constantly re-evaluate my past experiences so somebody might not have the same conclusion as a result of trying to insight their childhood memories. They might find something frustrating/ scary as a child and only recall that particular feeling as an adult.

 

I'm afraid I don't really understand the first point, so I ask you to further clarify, but what I'm getting is that content is rated based more on the perspective that a child might adopt regarding certain acts of violence, rather than the inclusion of said acts of violence. But I feel that this is a weak argument, considering that a child will adopt a perspective regarding violence regardless of the nature of the act itself or the message that it is supposed to send (if satirical/ ironic). I feel like if children can differentiate between real violence and virtual violence they can do so regardless of the nature of the virtual violence. There are also many cases where children miss the message/ subtext entirely. I don't see that much difference between something like Grezzo Due or Postal 2 and something more "sensitive" like Unreal or Quake. Again, let me know if I misunderstood the point.

 

As for my initial comment being anecdotal and projection, I never saw it as such because I don't feel like there are any children out there that will continue to play a game, especially unsupervised, if it scares them constantly.

[Nine Inch Heels]

3 minutes ago, rzh said:

I believe that age restrictions should be imposed only if the content could have a negative, permanent impact on a child's psyche. I don't think there are that many, if any video games that could potentially traumatize a child for life.

This is not why games are being rated, or at least it's not the entire reason... If you're rooting your assertion entirely on this one thing that may or may not happen, you miss out on many things that can result in negative consequences not directly related to game-induced traumata, for instance desensitization with regards to physical violence in real life, or for example the use of slurs, such as the n-word... You wouldn't believe how many parents had to deal with kids who suddenly started throwing slurs around, the source of which being video games in some cases. Have your kid do that in school, because they don't know any better, and the best you can hope for is that a teacher gets wise before somebody else gets offended enough to start throwing punches... And then, if it happens to be the latter, there's your trauma at the end of a chain of events which age restrictions aim to prevent. That's why they exist. They are there to protect kids from themselves, because they cannot differentiate between satire and statements made in earnest, just as you already pointed out.

 

Kids aren't "dumb", but they are uneducated, and what they often do is to emulate what is shown to them, especially if it's being presented as something worthwhile in some capacity. Now go ahead and tell me that Doom Eternal doesn't make violence seem like a worthwhile solution to conflicts. Will kids get in touch with the concept of violence eventually anyway? Yes, of course they will, but it is highly preferable to have them wrap their heads around such concepts when they have the means to fully understand the ramifications - which is not when they're only 8 years of age. So it's by no means a weak argument, it's one that highly favours age restrictions, because it's better if your kid is aware of potential consequences before they engage in actions that would lead them to said consequences.

[Grain of Salt]

Rather than minimum, there should be a maximum age for playing nu doom. Around 12, for example.

[rzh]

36 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

or for example the use of slurs, such as the n-word... You wouldn't believe how many parents had to deal with kids who suddenly started throwing slurs around, the source of which being video games in some cases.

I don't really have anything to add, I get your point but I found this part pretty funny. It's something I didn't think of because I live in a mostly ethnically homogenous country that doesn't have English as an official language. If kids randomly started calling each other the n-word teachers and parents will be most likely confused.

[whatup876]

One thing to mention about kids and violent games is also fanbases and the internet.

To this day, predators and groomers still exist.

But there's also situations where some people want a certain space to be for 18+, but it doesn't stop someone younger from getting in just to complain that some content isn't suitable for them. (as in, they didn't read the sign and find something not meant for them)

 

Someone will bring up how fanbases of violent/gritty media tend to be more normal/less crazy than those of colorfull/nicer media (like tales of adults sending death threats over fanart of CN shows) but at the same time, the "wholesome" portions can lead to mischaracterizations of characters meant to be neutral of morally ambiguous.

Sometimes, i find something funny and charming from the era when Warhammer fans drew 40K space marines murdering MLP characters. that sort of "yeah, i'm a badass not into that kiddie shit" stuff that feels like a bygone era.

 

At least we're aware that it's preferable if some guy plays GTA over watching political Youtubers lol.

[7x47]

12+ if the violence doesnt bother them

[DNSKILL5]

This is something that a parent should decide, not a law-making body. People say mature content can cause problems for children, but there are plenty of fucked up people in this world who didn't need to play Doom to decide to mutilate animals, kill people, etc. So it isn't as simple as mature content is bad for kids, no, mature content can be bad for certain children, and do nothing whatsoever to others. So there is no reason to make this a bigger issue than it needs to be. 17 or 18+ without adult approval is fair and that's where it should stay as far as rules and guidelines go.

Edited March 11, 2023 by DNSKILL5

[OliveTree]

On 3/10/2023 at 7:51 AM, 7x47 said:

12+ if the violence doesnt bother them

i dont understand...i thought the answer was 329?

 

hm. but on second thought, that IS larger than 12

[xdarkmasterx]

Average NuDoom player

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by xdarkmasterx

[TheSlipgateStudios]

Minimum should be either 15 or 16. In my case if I was younger I would've played it at 14 lol. Either way, I played the first Quake when I was 7 sooo yeah.