I've been playing GTA since I've been 10, and I remember being about 12-13 and getting GTA SA for Christmas. 

In my opinion it depends on your kid. If you think he is mature enough to handle the game (and understand it is only just a game) then let him have at it. If you think his mind isn't ready for it don't let him play it. In the end it wont really matter, he will get his hands on it eventually through friends at school, a friends house or elsewhere if you refuse him. Or at the very least he will watch gameplay videos.  

It's a game, just another form of entertainment. If you think at 12 he isn't already looking at adult content and jacking off to porn or at least experimenting with something you are delusional (do you even remember being 12? Think back) I've always held the belief that the more you introduce your kid to these kinds of things, and really sit down with them and talk with them about it, the better they will develop and turn out and appreciate you. 

I remember growing up as a kid and the parents who were always "strict" and thought they were protecting their child were really just ignorant. I had multiple friends coming over to my house and do everything they werent allowed to do at home. Like I said, in the end they are going to make their own decisions so it's best to just offer guidance and be there with them to talk about, instead of them growing up and resenting you and doing everything you never allowed them to do before. 

I honeslty dont see a problem with the average 12 year old playing this game. They are being exposed to so much more bad out in the real world then they ever could be sitting on a couch looking at fake boobs or shooting random NPC's in a video game. 


 

[QUOTE="LLYNCES"]

- Hating your own gender

 

now that's what we call real edgyness. 

LLCoolKo

LOL, a Zyzz signature. How trendy...

Do you even train?

- Hating your own gender

now that's what we call real edgyness. 

Not sure how people could defend the review really....

also the people arguing that the games score is "low" need to reconsider their standards on what a good game is and what a bad game is, but they tend to be in the minority. People are more so just mad that it got docked on something retarded like "misogyny" considering the games nature. 

If the reviewer was PETA it would have been docked for animal cruelty, if the reviewer was some extremely sensitive person to racism it would have been docked for racism, if it was some hardcore MRA guy it would have been docked for Misandry, if it was some hardcore far far right conservative it would have been docked for violence and the list goes on and on.

and nobody is arguing that the reviewer shouldn't be allowed to write a review, nor are people claiming that being "objective" in a review is possible, considering that each review by nature is just somebody's subjective opinion. If people are arguing for an objective review they obviously have no idea what reviews are. 

however, docking the point for "misogyny" is unfair to the developer, the millions looking for as "fair" and "unbiased" review as possible, and unfair to the game itself considering its violent nature. The reviewer is basically nit picking what they dont like based on political beliefs, which shows bias, which means the review is UNFAIR by definition of the word. e.g. (you cant cliam misogyny without also claiming misandry and racism)

The fact this reviewer could be in such a prominent position in the company just shows how far gamespot has fallen, or how much they want their reviews to not be taken seriously by their audience. To claim misogyny is also to attack rockstar, because by definition of the word misogyny is a hatred for women, and violence towards women, and in order for rockstar to make a games with misogyny they must also promote misogyny. You can't simply make that claim without supporting it with sufficient evidence either. 

The reviewers evidence is "dimensionless female character" or at least that is their main argument for misogyny, however that isn't reflective on misogyny at all, dimensionless female characters does not show a hatred for women, it simply is a case of bad storywriting. So instead of putting "misogyny" as a negative, the reviewer would have been better off putting "bad storywriting for female characters" 

This person deserves the criticism they are getting for their review. Hiding behind "well it's just my opinion, reviews are subjective" when making such bold claims without supported evidence and charging the developers/game with the claim of hatred for women is a BOLD statement that NEEDS to be supported. 

Not to mention, if you want to include misogyny while writing a fair review, you must include misandry and racism as negatives as well (or you are being unfair to those groups of people) and while you're at it, you have to include violence as a negative too (to not do so while making the claim of misogony as a negative would be illogical) Not doing so is also being unfair towards those groups of people. The only reason this reviewer is getting away (for the most part) with her review is because of straw man tactics used by her supporters, and because she/he is transgendered with the backing of feminists and far left liberals (which is a trend on the internet right now)

and for those who haven't caught on yet, I say she must also include misandry and racism and violence to be fair, because those are just as much part of this (and represented) in this game as misogyny is. Nit picking one you hate based on personal preference and giving the score a negative for it is being biased. 

I don't support unfair and biased reviews, which is why I simply cannot support Carolyn Petit s review of this game. This person should not be in the position they are in considering the amount of people who look towards this site for as fair and unbiased reviews as possible. This review paints a clear picture of what reviews should NOT look like, it is something a student taking Journalism101 would write. 

and in before "All reviews are a bit biased" which I would agree with, however such unfair and clear biasm and such steep claims without supported evidence should not be acceptable if your standards for reviews are above the average person, and this person writing a review for the millions of people looking to buy this game should be held accountable for it.  

What gets me is her reason for the game being "mysognist" In her opinion it is because the famale characters appear to be dimensionless. 

What really strikes this as odd though is

That doesn't warrant the claim of misogyny, and there is likely more violence against men (misandry) in this game all in all than violence against women (mysogyny) technically this game is just a violent video game all together - which is to be expected. 

it would be like some far right conservative docking points on the game because it's too violent. Instead we got some far left transgered feminist docking points because you can stab female characters with knives and go to strip clubs (assumingly as the characters being dimensionless doesn't prove hatred for women by men, which doesn't warrant the claim of mysogony, so it only leaves room for the violence being the cause of her claim)

These are the same types of people, just on the opposite sides of the poltical spectrum. The messed up thing is that she/he gets away with it because they are transgendered and feminim/social justice/liberal is the new trend going on around the internet right now. 

If she would have wrote as a negative "The famale characters appear to be dimensionless" I would have no complaints. If you want to include mysogony you must also include misandry though, and thus must also include violence all together as a negative. Her putting mysogony as a negative lacks any logical coeherence and seems to only be put in based on her political beliefs. 

She knocked it down for being "MYSOGINIST?" This invalidates her review in my mind. Take out that idiotic complaint, and it got a 10.Vladibus

I think he will be acquitted, there simply isn't enough evidence to prove him guilty. Also the sense of "white guilt" and "muh feelings" in this thread from some of the users is pretty amazing. He wasn't told "not to follow" he was trying to find the street name, the dispatcher asked him if he was following to which he replied "yes" at the time, to which the dispatcher simply said "we don't need you to do that" and he couldn't find the street name so he stopped and walked back to his car and got ambushed. The dispatcher had no legal authority anyway to tell him that he isn't allowed to follow, but it wasn't like he was stalking Trayvon at the time either, he was mostly just trying to report somebody he thought was suspicious (you have to remember there were a lot of break ins happening in his neighbourhood at the time) it's not likely it had anything to do with race considering Zimmerman's past, and nothing to indicate he was racist. 

Zimmerman lost site of Trayvon while trying to find the street name. If you look at the actual location, there are bushes around the path which Zimmerman was walking back from (you also have to remember it was dark out) As he was walking back Trayvon came out and asked Zimmerman "if he had a problem" to which Zimmerman replied "no" and to which Trayvon said "you do now" and went on to attack him, smashing his head into the pavement and forcing him to draw his weapon for self defense. 

This is Zimmerman's official story, which the FBI even believe to be true. One reasoning for this is because while he was still being questioned they lied and told him "We got a video of what went down" and Zimmerman replied "Thank god" If he was truly guilty of anything he would have had a different response to that (this is what the police believe) The witnesses at the scene also confirmed that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman. Basically all the evidence matches up with his official story. 

Given all this, they also had a guy come in who studies law (and was a prosecution witness, also African American for those white guilt lib morons who make everything about race) say he would advise against waiting until you're near death to stand your ground and use self defense. I'm not sure how they are going to be able to charge Zimmerman with anything considering this, the only thing leaning in the prosecutions favour is that the jury is mostly single mother females. Hopefully they can take the "feelings" aspect out of this and look at the evidence clearly. 

 

[QUOTE="iowastate"][QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]...which is clearly not the case here, as Zimmerman was having his head reshaped by a combination of concrete and angry Martin.

BMD004

Martin was skinny, but he wasn't a scrawny little kid like people like to make him out to be. Stop pretending he was a helpless little boy. He was nearly a legal-aged adult who is used to laying people out on the football field. He wasn't a wimpy little boy.

Secondly, just because you weigh more than somebody does not mean that is a good thing when getting into a fight. If you are an out of shape, non-athletic guy who is carrying around pounds and pounds of dead-weight fat, then you are most likely about to get your ass kicked if you are fighting with an athlete.

I'd put my money on a 5'11", 160 pound athlete over a non-athletic, out of shape 5'8", 195 pound fatty every time.

If someone came up to me while I'm just walking in an aggressive manner, and lets be real Zimmerman didnt casually stroll up to Martin, I would get defensive. I'm sure words were said and a fight ensued. When I say kid, I don't mean size, I mean in the fact that one was an adult with the midset(hopefully) of one and the other of a kid. He had injuries yes but had he not got out of his vehicle none of this would have happened. That is my point. He was trying to be tough or a t like a hero and all that happened was a person is dead and it's by his hands. He has to take responsibility for his actions. ninjastar