Which would you let your child play, Bioshock as a series, or Call of Duty?

#1y000012500Posted 4/1/2013 11:32:03 PM
And you have to choose one, child ranging from 5 to 10. Feel free to voice your opinion on not letting your child play either, but pick one or the other preferably with a reason.
#2BloodxAlchemyPosted 4/1/2013 11:34:19 PM
Call of Duty, because it might not scare the **** out of them. But if you want them to question their existence early on (or worse, potentially think the game is stupid and boring and wonder why you made them play it), Bioshock.
#3Soldier_0_CrossPosted 4/1/2013 11:34:23 PM
Call of Duty probably, Bioshock 1 is pretty scary in the early game and throughout and the entire Fort Frolic bit is kind of demented. Call of Duty if its just the campaign and not listening to people online is the lesser of 2 evils.
---
Go beyond the impossible and kick reason to the curb!
#4Mr_LightbulbPosted 4/1/2013 11:36:34 PM
i was gonna say Bioshock, but at that age they wouldnt be able to comprehend a good story. might as well let them kill nazis i suppose
---
FIRMLY GRASP IT
(not this) http://i.imgur.com/89zzSIX.jpg
#5LatchKeyKidPosted 4/1/2013 11:46:43 PM
The WW2 Call of Duty's are pretty acceptable I think, back when that series was respectable. And while I still wouldn't exactly condone a kid playing the rest of them, I think people getting their head sawn off up close and personal or the scary nature of BS1 is a little much for a kid.

Bioshock are violent adult games, CoD is summer blockbuster schlock that glorifies violence, but in a pg13 way.
---
FFXI Lakshmi Server: Walsh
#6TheBellumPosted 4/1/2013 11:57:54 PM
I doubt I'd buy a five year old a 360 to begin with. At that age, they could and would probably break it given just how fragile the consoles are.

A ten year old? I'd probably just get them Call of Duty. A big part of the Bioshock series is the story, atmosphere, etc. and I just can't see a ten year old being able to soak it all up the way a teenager and/or adult can.
#7y000012500(Topic Creator)Posted 4/1/2013 11:58:00 PM
LatchKeyKid posted...

Bioshock are violent adult games, CoD is summer blockbuster schlock that glorifies violence, but in a pg13 way.

Yes, exactly this! My friend was trying to argue with me that CoD shouldn't be played by little kids, and I'm just like, it's not like there's excessive violence. You shoot them and they go down, like laser tag. It's PG13, aside from maybe WaW which had the whole blown off limbs things the Modern ones have been pretty bloodless I think though. At least the multiplayer(mics off) would be some what simple PG13.

He accused me of letting my hypothetical child play all rated M games, and I was like hell no, but CoD games are barely pushing the bounds of M, and it's just because the campaigns at times are slightly excessive. I said I wouldn't let them play Bioshock and he said he would let them play Bioshock over CoD, and I was just like, wtf?
#8y000012500(Topic Creator)Posted 4/2/2013 12:00:04 AM
TheBellum posted...
I doubt I'd buy a five year old a 360 to begin with. At that age, they could and would probably break it given just how fragile the consoles are.

Well it'd probably be your 360 and it's just a matter of letting them watch you, or you supervising them playing it.
#9masblasPosted 4/2/2013 12:14:56 AM
It's just a video game it's not going to hurt anyone really so if a child wants to play violent games let them.
#10TheBellumPosted 4/2/2013 12:16:12 AM
y000012500 posted...
TheBellum posted...
I doubt I'd buy a five year old a 360 to begin with. At that age, they could and would probably break it given just how fragile the consoles are.

Well it'd probably be your 360 and it's just a matter of letting them watch you, or you supervising them playing it.


What I mean is I wouldn't want them using one in general. Whether it's their own, mine, or someone else's, I wouldn't want to deal with the aftermath of them breaking it.

If it's just letting them watch you, Bioshock would probably be okay. For the supervision thing, I still say Call of Duty.