Battlefield 1

[Flash Walken]

I wouldn't let a 12 year old play it.

[Violator]

The multiplayer isn't gory at all the only real gory parts are probably the melees and things like fire bombs and gas bombs.

The single player on the other hand defianelty is pretty gory for a 12 year old but not much more than any marvel or star wars movie he will watch or modern comedy movie.

I was definitely playing more gory games at 12 and younger Soldier of fortune,mortal combat,Doom and GTA.

Also depends on what he plays already?

[McG]

Thanks to all for your kind thoughts. WW1 was extremely horrific for participants; going over the top to get shredded, the heavier than air gasses like mustard gas, and the lingering death and disease rampant in the trench warfare method of war. All wars are horrible in their own way of course.

I will take back the Xbox one and play this game to see what it is like. I've been playing borderlands on the 360 so a change will be good.

Thanks again to everyone for your help and kind thoughts.

[The Fonz]

The bayonet and melee attacks are pretty gory in multiplayer. I don't think I'd let a 12 yo play.

[BigNumbers]

Yah, even in MP, sneaking up behind a guy and the noise of putting a knife through his chest and the sound of his rib cage being broken through... pretty gory stuff.

But that's a good point made earlier - I played much worse at that age... So am I being a hypocrite?

I mean, we were the first generation ( late 20s early 30s) to have grown up entirely on semi-realistic video games ... Our parents (generally) didn't understand or appreciate what we were playing, nor monitor us... And we turned out okay?

Interesting question - do as I say, not as I did...

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

Yah, even in MP, sneaking up behind a guy and the noise of putting a knife through his chest and the sound of his rib cage being broken through... pretty gory stuff.

But that's a good point made earlier - I played much worse at that age... So am I being a hypocrite?

I mean, we were the first generation ( late 20s early 30s) to have grown up entirely on semi-realistic video games ... Our parents (generally) didn't understand or appreciate what we were playing, nor monitor us... And we turned out okay?

Interesting question - do as I say, not as I did...

I knew I wasn't supposed to be playing those games, which is part of it.

Parents acting like it's no big deal I think is a contributor to normalising it. Like, I dunno if I'd let a 12 year old watch Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan, but I feel like watching those movies with an adult is more appropriate for a 12 year old than blowing helmets off skulls with well placed sniper rounds without the context of the larger horrors of the first world war.

Maybe I'm just a big ninny muggins though, I like war shooters.

[gottabekd]

I have no clue about child psychology, but here in my Internet opinion:

Violence in first person shooters gets a bad rap. I play first person shooters because I find the gameplay, tactics, and strategy interesting. Rarely is it about killing a representation of a human being. Instead it is about fragging an enemy to get points or help your team capture an objective in this fantasy world. Guns just happen to be the method of gameplay. (Or maybe I'm just too desensitized I don't even associate the blood spatter of an exploding head as a violent act).

Now contrast that to games like Grand Theft Auto V where you have free reign to drive through a crowded sidewalk market, threaten people with guns and blow away their head/hand/crotch as they beg for their life, torture people by bashing them with a bat or hooking them up to a car battery, pick up and have sex with prostitutes, all while the characters use extremely profane language. Still very fun , but maybe more damaging to a developing brain.

But I'm not a parent, and I'm sure it is tough. You don't want to be "that parent" that lets your kids experience media they are not mature enough for. And you also don't want to be "that parent" that won't let Johnny play the latest game with all his friends (so he has to go over to his friend's house to play instead).

[Mccree]

My 9 year old played didn't like it and moved on. He just found it boring

[jammies]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

I wouldn't let a 12 year old play it.

...because he'd probably beat me.

[McG]

Originally Posted by gottabekd

I have no clue about child psychology, but here in my Internet opinion:

Violence in first person shooters gets a bad rap. I play first person shooters because I find the gameplay, tactics, and strategy interesting. Rarely is it about killing a representation of a human being. Instead it is about fragging an enemy to get points or help your team capture an objective in this fantasy world. Guns just happen to be the method of gameplay. (Or maybe I'm just too desensitized I don't even associate the blood spatter of an exploding head as a violent act).

Now contrast that to games like Grand Theft Auto V where you have free reign to drive through a crowded sidewalk market, threaten people with guns and blow away their head/hand/crotch as they beg for their life, torture people by bashing them with a bat or hooking them up to a car battery, pick up and have sex with prostitutes, all while the characters use extremely profane language. Still very fun , but maybe more damaging to a developing brain.

But I'm not a parent, and I'm sure it is tough. You don't want to be "that parent" that lets your kids experience media they are not mature enough for. And you also don't want to be "that parent" that won't let Johnny play the latest game with all his friends (so he has to go over to his friend's house to play instead).

I gotta get me some GTA V hehheh.

Great point in the last paragraph though; it is definitely a battle with other parents' and their morals/ethics/parenting skills. One of my son's buddies gets whatever game with all of the maps/add ons on whichever platform on release day, regardless of rating.

One thing as a parent that I have a difficult time with is the actual killing part; regardless of the graphic nature of it, is killing something in a video game really murder? Is murder really pixels doing stuff to other pixels?

I say that as a person that loves FPS, and thinks nothing of playing the halo series for example.

On thread, I downloaded the Battlefield 1 game from EA Access and so I am ready for a couple of hours of gameplay myself to see later tonight (after WJC games).

I also struggle with perspective on this stuff; I decided to talk with my son about the violence in games and WW1 in particular, as captured in this game. He told me that he had been thinking about it too, and we had a great chat about his visit to the national war museum in Ottawa on a school trip where they learned and saw so much about the sacrifices made by men and women throughout history in warfare. He was able to tell me a lot about WW1 and how it was fought, and in particular from a Canadian perspective. I am extremely grateful that we were able to find a way to send him on that trip, and that, to me, was a great learning opportunity. This stuff is real life; if you are aware in real life, does a video game change that? or is knowing that something happened to end someone's life the same as actually seeing or doing it in a video game? As adults, we have that perspective, but do our children?

I didn't mean to derail the thread so apologies for that, but at the same time thanks to all for a very interesting discussion.

[The Fonz]

Scout: I can't hit a damn thing when I zero my scope for 150m or 300m. Even when I'm making a shot across an entire level, the rifle seems more accurate left alone at 75m.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Scout: I can't hit a damn thing when I zero my scope for 150m or 300m. Even when I'm making a shot across an entire level, the rifle seems more accurate left alone at 75m.

when I am zero'd in at a specific range I am aiming just above from the crosshairs.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

when I am zero'd in at a specific range I am aiming just above from the crosshairs.

If you're going for a head shot, you'll aim at his neck (assuming he's standing)?

I feel like I've aged 30yrs. I used to be legendary at video games, and now I'm a friggin dud.

[Wood]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

If you're going for a head shot, you'll aim at his neck (assuming he's standing)?

I feel like I've aged 30yrs. I used to be legendary at video games, and now I'm a friggin dud.

I feel the same way in FPSs

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Scout: I can't hit a damn thing when I zero my scope for 150m or 300m. Even when I'm making a shot across an entire level, the rifle seems more accurate left alone at 75m.

Figured out my issue. I was always playing Team Deathmatch, and I didn't realize how small those levels were until I played conquest and could see the distance markers on the Objectives. I'm thinking Team Deathmatch levels can't me more than 125m from 1 end to the other.

Conquest is incredible. Can't believe it took me 2 weeks to try it.

[Violator]

All I ever play is conquest battlefield games were meant to be played like that this the name.

[btimbit]

Yeah Conquest is the best mode for sure. I still remember how revolutionary it was when 1942 first came out and it's been the best game mode in FPS games since

[TjRhythmic]

I don't like conquest at all. I think operations is probably the best mode, it just has more pace to it. Conquest I find way too slow

[-TC-]

Conquest is my game of choice. I'd love to see COD do something like that...

[Since1984]

Spring Update was released yesterday, some great updates and fixes. Added platoons and a few new guns. Map voting really helps to avoid those couple ####ty made maps. Really loving the non-stop updates EA/Dice are providing. This and all the premium members are getting a new map in June! can't wait!