WhyKid wants the game Splinter Cell for his Gameboy SomethingorOther for Yule. I checked www.splintercell.com and my first reaction is No. Way.
Am I overreacting? Is it realistic violence and abusive language, or cartoonish violence and a few swears? How bad are we talking here?
On second glance, it appears it’s not available for GameBoy. He must want it for PC. If that makes any difference…
A lot of sneaking and knocking people out with the base of your gun and then rescuing hostages. There isn’t really much killing at all.
You can generally decide whether you want to kill or not. Most missions can be completed by stealth or by shooting the bad guys. They’re going to be shooting at you, though.
In the Splinter Cell games, you play Sam Fisher, a deep cover operative working for a secret goverment agency, who’s authorized to do anything he needs to to stop terrorists and other enemies of the United States. It’s certainly a mature game.
He’ll be fine. The Tom Clancy series of games are meant to simulate special ops of one kind or another (I prefer Ghost Recon) and aren’t meant to be a fragfest. Heck, I played Doom and Wolfenstein 3D when I was 13 and turned out fine. DukeNukem 3D even got into the mix somewhere when I was a teenager (never liked it–preferred the platformers. But I digress.)
No way you could play it on a handheld system. Like most games of its type, you need a full keyboard and mouse combo or the amount of buttons you find on a X-Box or PS2 controller. Computer’s a better choice than console if you have the power to handle it.
There’s one for the DS and a couple for the Gameboy Advanced. Check out this search at GameFAQs
I’ve never played those games so can’t say.
Hmmm. I still say it’d be a lousy choice. Screen’s too small and the buttons are too limited.
For the gameboy it might be ok (as FernForest mentioned its available on DS & Advanced) on XBox, PC or PS2 I’d say most likely not, the themes in it are very intense (and for the most part ripped out of the headlines or Alias depending on the game) however I wouldnt think that these will convey as well via the GB:A or DS.
Also whilst games like Doom & Doom II, Serious Sam or even to a lesser extent Quake IV go ahead and portray the violence as over the top and comical to a certain extent, it is very realistic in Splinter Cell (also the third game is almost photorealistic in places) with the emphasis on close quarters murder as it is a stealth-em-up, in number 3 the hitting people over the head with a gun is replaced with stabbing them with a bowie knife.
If you’d like a review of the games head over to gamespy for a GBA Review* or a PC Review the PC one is quite indepth, and if the reviewers mention that the game makes them squeamish remember that these are 20 somethings who’ve played games most of their lives 
.
*Note this is of the second game, I couldnt find mention of the current one Chaos Theory
Personally, I’m all for allowing kids to play whatever they want…
Let me explain my viewpoint. I was never restricted as to which games I could play. I started playing ‘violent’ video games at a young age… Hell, Sierra’s Police Quest 1 taught me to read and type (before I was even in school, it came out in’87, I started school in '88) and you get in a shootout at the end of that game. I had no problems playing Mortal Kombat when I was 8. Duke Nuke’em and Quake were walks in the park. The infamous Night Trap wasn’t a big deal to me. And as far as Tom Clancy games, I started playing them when they first came out (I was 14) and thought they were pretty tame in comparison to other games I’d played.
I’ve made it this far without any problems, I’m firmly grounded in reality and don’t (often) get the urge to go SubZero on someone and pull out their spine.
But if I were to be a bit more cautious, I’d say check out what other games he owns/has played first. If there are other games in this genre (Stealth action, like Metal Gear Solid, Rainbow 6, Ghost Recon, Thief, SOCOM, etc) or games that are ‘worse’ (Postal 2, Doom 3, go for it… If they have any of the new Grand Theft Autos (3, Vice City or San Andreas) You’re good. If all they’ve been playing all their life is MarioKart and Harvest Moon… Not so much. If this is their first foray in to the more violent side into video games, then it’s up to you to decide if they’re ready.
I’m in support of it, but I’m from the ‘video games do no harm’ camp.
I’m not sure what camp I’m in. I’m definitely not in the “no harm at all” camp: the very technology itself was, as I understand it, developed by the military to train shooters - obviously, it has *some *effect. OTOH, I don’t really think that a video game will be the difference between my fairly well-adjusted kid going postal one day or not.
Up to this point, he’s been restricted to Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings type games: any violence is of the jumping and squashing/spellcasting/archery type violence. I can’t really explain why a gun feels different to me: it’s the same button controls, and the same pixellated “death” whether it’s an arrow or a bullet. But I can’t ignore that voice in my head telling me that buying this for him is condoning something against my ethical standards.
sigh And I know that simply means he’ll borrow it from one of his friends. He’s too old for me to control such things anymore. But I don’t think I’ll be the one purchasing it for him. Maybe when he’s older.
Nitpick: 30-somethings, most likely. Sluggo is in his mid-thirties. Warrior is in his forties, I’d heard. I’d be surprised if those reviewers were under thirty (I’ll be 32 next month, myself).
I’m all for parents deciding against purchasing something that’s against their moral code. Even if he does sneak around and play it, the knowledge that you’re opposed to it will affect his decisions in the future. Children aren’t harmed by parents setting boundaries on their entertainment (within reason.)
I’m not sure where you heard that but there’s no truth to it at all.
As far as Splinter Cell goes. If he’s 13 it should be OK.
Trust me, he’s seen much worse in movies and TV, you just don’t know about it.
13? No queston he should be allowed. The kid probably drops more F-bombs than that game ever could.
I heard it in a media studies/child development course years ago. That video games were created as training tools - that the hand-eye coordination with no value judgement around firing was considered desirable for military training. Like most technologies, money was poured into R&D from the governement looking to strengthen the military. Could be tin-foil hat time, I don’t have the cites any more. My google-fu isn’t finding cites at the moment, but there are dozens of cites showing that the military is *now *using video games as training tools.
http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,60688,00.html?tw=wn_story_related
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/ptech/11/22/war.games/
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2000/Nov/Video_Games.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4460082.stm
And the Army is clear that it’s using this generation’s interest in violent video games as a recruitment tool, as well as a training tool: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1674362.html
Now, let me be clear that I am in no way endorsing general censorship or even age-based censorship. I think that all of us have the right to purchase this or any other game, and I don’t mind people playing them at all. But I’m just trying to weigh how I feel as a parent about buying it for one particular kid.
I’m afraid it’s tin foil hat time.
The military didn’t push the technology of any video game based training tools. They have apporiated the technology for their own uses, but can you blame them? Building a training field and supplying it with soldiers, guns and ammo is a lot more difficult than handing them a copy of Coutner-Strike.
And America’s Army isn’t really a recruiting tool. I mean it is, but getting the game is literally no strings attached. I signed up for a copy a few years ago and have never, in all that time, been contacted by an Army recruiter.
Ahh ok, for some reason I just cant picture Fargo as a 30 something (Shaithis on the other hand) and those two are the only ones I really pay attention to.
You can go through most of the game without killing more than a handful of people, though it is more difficult sometimes to go non-lethal. You are actually not allowed to kill people during parts of some missions. I think what you might be reacting to is the realistic and hard-edged approach the game takes.
Personally, I find it a lot less disturbing to have a few enemies whose deaths really matter than to be massacring hoards of gun fodder, but some people interpret this as being too realistic and therefore more threatening. I think it’s ironic that entertainment that shows the reality and aftermath of violence seems more disturbing to most people than entertainment that ignores the repercussions of a violent act or seeks to glorify or trivialize it.
Actually, no. I was the lead designer on Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six, the precursor to Splinter Cell and I actually spent some time with the SC team early in the development process, so I’m in a position to speak authoritatively on the origins of this technology.
(Ubisoft acquired the Tom Clancy license after they purchased Red Storm, the company that made Rainbow Six. Rainbow Six was a team-based shooter and Ubisoft wanted to expand the franchise into a game about a lone character. That became Splinter Cell.)
The technology behind shooters like Rainbow Six and Splinter Cell was not developed by the military. It is pure game code and is not a realistic depiction of actual combat experience (despite what the advertising sometimes implies).
Shooter games are sometimes used by the military as training tools, but only for building teamwork and situational awareness. They are poor tools for teaching people how to actually fire a weapon.
I feel pretty confident in saying that you have nothing to be concerned about. There’s 3 reasons for this.
At 13, he’s way beyond the point where you have to be really concerned. The maturity level of the typical 13 year old boy is pretty advanced when it comes to this type of thing. His literature in school is almost certainly rife with military themes and the reality of war. And even moreso, he’s going to see much much worse on TV on any given weeknight. I’m not advocating gratuitous sex and violence painting the walls red, but he’s certainly old enough to cope with realistic death and violence.
Splinter Cell simply isn’t that graphic. Characters are shot and exploded, but there’s very little in the way of blood and dismemberment which is common to the more extreme games. The violence is all within the scope of reality and is not more horrifying than you’d expect in a police drama on TV.
He’s already played it and it’s predecessors and he’s almost certainly going to be playing games as bad or worse with friends. If I were a parent, I’d be of the philosophy that it’s better to have it happen in the home where you’re able to supervise and put into perspective than elsewhere.
Actually,speaking as a Splinter Cell player, in most mission the objective is to NOT kill anyone but you can knock them out and such. I would say that the game is completely appropriate, but thats just me. GTA San Andreas on the other hand…