I'm meaning their wanting to say what is "bad" and "good" for the masses, and their fears of how it'll corrupt their minds by merely being exposed to it.
I didn't think you wanted stuff banned at all, however at it's core, censorship is censorship, even if the reasons for it sound reasonable at the time. The "shock value" games still teach something, and the "harmful" aspects I'd say are just media escalating what capabilities were already there, likely to be unlocked from something else if not that. It should be up to the individual buying something to see if something is bad for them, not some sort of collective.
Just how there's "harmful" games, there's also "harmful" books, but ignorance is worse.
Video games, especially those referenced here, are basically long interactive movies. You sometimes get to be the hero; sometimes you get to be the bad guy. Overall, it is art.
Someone asserted parents, etc. are to blame if kids grow to idolize any of these characters. I agree.
Video games are bought. They are not shoved down anyone's throat.
This parallels the music thing. Can certain music make you behave badly? No. The bad person is just more likely to identify with the content.
It parallels music, it parallels literature, it parallels theater, it parallels every form of art. Haters gonna' hate.
"The bad person is just more likely to identify with the content."
I love that it can be put that simply. Definition of what qualifies as "bad" aside, it still applies to every person's perspective of what constitutes "bad" in the first place.