everyone should be able to shoot everything.

[7seconds]

I like to think of it this way, Pirates didnt have a lot of guns back then. It was a little rare to see one and the guns back then were very inacurate. There are kids on this game and kids are easly manipulated. Go watch T.V. and look how many shows have guns and people shooting each other, they are not stabbing each other with knives, so in this day and age guns are little more popular and cooler thats why they have to be "monitored". I think, even though im one for guns, Disney is doing the right thing and trying to avoid lawsuits and stuff.

Plus even in the movies you dont see blood and guts even when people get killed by the sword you dont ever see it. I dont think its a very "family fun" movie when Disney would show all those little details.

[Slouyx]

Kids are impressionable. If they have a bad memory or such, they'll be affected by it more than a good memory; if they see someone doing a bad action, they'll think it's okay to do too. It doesn't matter if it's a game, having people shooting guns at each other in a kids game is not recommended. Sure, there is some older people that play this game that may want to shoot the Navy and EITC, and younger players who also want to do that, but it just wouldn't work. Like Eliza said, the game would just become a shoot-out. This part of the "Pirate Code" has not driven players away, and if it has, then it is that player's own fault. All because you can't shoot two types of enemies, you'll quit the game? I am sure there is other games where you cannot shoot certain types of enemies - isn't this just the same thing? They have implemented it into an easy-to-understand part of the game's "Pirate Code."

Disney, no matter what you think or what statistics you have, intended this game for younger kids, because Disney's aim is to enterain and let kids have their own imagination. Of course there is adults that are entertained and follow Walt Disney's dream. But I think the team of POTCO realizes that shooting a gun is something much more realistic than stabbing someone with a sword, or attuning someone with a voodoo doll. A lot of kids these days are already rude because it is "funny," ignorant because "You're not the boss of me, I don't care how you feel," arrogant because "I'm smarter than you and there's nothing you can do to make me stop,"and violent because "how come my favorite TV show character is allowed to do it?!" All of this comes from something the kid has seen, therefore being impressioned or imprinted on.

So now, think about it. Disney tries to avoid this in every way; so why would it seem wrong to them, or in this case, us, for them to not allow us to shoot two different types of enemies, out of the many kinds there is? It is not like it is hypocritical; the Navy and EITC soldiers don't come after us with pistols, repeaters, and blunderbusses. In fact, no enemy is able to shoot a pirate. So why should we be able to shoot any enemy at all? We shoot skeletons, alligators, crabs, wasps, bats, anything of Jolly Roger's army you can think of. That's a lot of kinds of enemies. And then there is Navy soldiers and EITC soldiers. The only two types of enemies we cannot shoot with gun-based weapons. It's only two and there is a big commotion over it. I am absolutely sure you can find another game that has something similiar to this; you can't shoot a certain type of enemy. And if you think not being able to level shooting on the Navy/EITC is a problem, they have bayonets for a reason. Honestly, I think this is a great decision that the POTCO team made.

[Swash]

Originally Posted by Countainer7b

its pretty simple
1 a sword who has one of those laying around in reach of children
2 dagger dangerous everyone has knives in the kitchen but looks to difficult to do so not replicated as often for that reason
3 voodoo doll you can get one but it doesn't do anything
4 grenade very hard to get
5 same as voodoo doll
6 gun found in many houses seams easy to replicate easy to get very easy for it to get out of hand in reach of small children or (in the case of handguns) it would have no purpose
so u can see shooting the undead thats nothing they aren't alive not something someone would replicate also the trailer lied many times ignore it.

To answer this:
1. I actually do own a sword and it is in reach of children although you're right it is fairly uncommon.

2. You're right kitchen knives are the closest you're getting to the real thing.

3. Correct.

4. If your in the military, then you have used these.

5. Ditto.

6. I don't know a single person who doesn't own a gun.

[Tiberius Fireskull]

Yea, guns are the only weapons that are easy to access for some people, and are more realistic. I'll go over my opinion on each weapon as well.

Sword: Not too hard to get a hold of one, as some families, including my own, own a sword. However, if you have ever tried to hold a sword, they are really, really heavy. A young child will not be able to lift it very high, let alone stab someone.

Doll: As Countainer said, you can buy them, but it won't do anything unless you throw it at someone xD

Dagger: Yes, you can use kitchen knives. However, most kids have been taught not to "play with sharp objects". Most people never tell them to never play with guns, cuz they assume they can't get them.

Grenades: Ok really, nobody owns a collection of grenades. I'm fairly certain its illegal, and even if I'm wrong, I doubt a kid would know how to use it. Again, the only way you can get grenades is by being in the military.

Staff: Ok, closest thing is a branch from the tree outside. Only thing you can do with it is go whack whack whack. No voodoo spells.

Gun: Families do own guns. Animal control, police officers, former soldiers, these people may have kids, and their gun in their closet. Easy to get a hold of, and dangerous.

[Swash]

Also I'd like to point out that it is extremely rare for a human being above the age of about 8 or 9 to become influenced by a video game. The reason being is that they are taught by basically everyone around them that it is virtual and not the real thing and most parents teach their kids that basically anything done in a Grand theft auto game is bad.

[Slouyx]

Originally Posted by Swash

Also I'd like to point out that it is extremely rare for a human being above the age of about 8 or 9 to become influenced by a video game. The reason being is that they are taught by basically everyone around them that it is virtual and not the real thing and most parents teach their kids that basically anything done in a Grand theft auto game is bad.

No, kids of EVERY age are able to be influenced by what happens around them. It happens every day, and the world shows it now. Unfortunately, a lot of parents no longer care about what their kids see, or teach them how it may be bad.

[Swash]

Slouyx if you see a kid that has been influenced by a video game, JUST THE VIDEO GAME, not online interactions, then please recommend them to a therapist as any person who can comprehend right from wrong will not become influenced by video games. An example for you: I play Grand Theft Auto and I know a large handful of people who do, yet we aren't stealing cars from people, talking trash, or commiting any other crimes. My conclusion is that anyone who knows that Video games are not the real world, will not be influenced by a video game. ( And kids who have game related b-day parties or wear game related Halloween costumes don't count. )

[Captain Del]

Originally Posted by Swash

Slouyx if you see a kid that has been influenced by a video game, JUST THE VIDEO GAME, not online interactions, then please recommend them to a therapist as any person who can comprehend right from wrong will not become influenced by video games. An example for you: I play Grand Theft Auto and I know a large handful of people who do, yet we aren't stealing cars from people, talking trash, or commiting any other crimes. My conclusion is that anyone who knows that Video games are not the real world, will not be influenced by a video game. ( And kids who have game related b-day parties or wear game related Halloween costumes don't count. )

So your saying that based on how you act, you can say that your actions represent the broad majority of children?

I have met children in this game as young as 6 years old. SIX. Would you be willing to give your six-year-old child your bills and ask them to pay your taxes? Would you be willing to give them a pocket full of cash and tell them to spend it on veggies, and then walk away? Would you give your six year old a bottle of poison?

What I'm getting as, there are children out there that have NEVER been taught right from wrong, are allowed to do whatever they want, and get away without knowing consequences might exist (Supernanny scenarios don't exist just on TV.) If we let kids shoot people in game, and in turn, they are REWARDED, then what would happen?

"Hey, daddy has one of those thingys! I can go use that like the pirates!"

Not every family is a perfect little clan, where everybody is responsible and cares for each other. So, we can't treat it as such.

[/soapbox]

[Swash]

Originally Posted by Captain Del

So your saying that based on how you act, you can say that your actions represent the broad majority of children?

I have met children in this game as young as 6 years old. SIX. Would you be willing to give your six-year-old child your bills and ask them to pay your taxes? Would you be willing to give them a pocket full of cash and tell them to spend it on veggies, and then walk away? Would you give your six year old a bottle of poison?

What I'm getting as, there are children out there that have NEVER been taught right from wrong, are allowed to do whatever they want, and get away without knowing consequences might exist (Supernanny scenarios don't exist just on TV.) If we let kids shoot people in game, and in turn, they are REWARDED, then what would happen?

"Hey, daddy has one of those thingys! I can go use that like the pirates!"

Not every family is a perfect little clan, where everybody is responsible and cares for each other. So, we can't treat it as such.

[/soapbox]

Why should Disney care about 6 year olds playing this game? It's rated E-10 which means if a 6 year old sees a pirate shooting a Navy soldier and their mom or dad doesn't like it and tries to sue they'd automatically lose just because of the rating saying all content is directed to people ages 10+. Most if not all 10 year olds know what happens when you shoot someone and a large amount of them have shot an animal such as a deer, duck, squirrel, etc. That being said Disney is not responsible for a 9 year old or younger seeing something bad on this game. They are only responsible for the age group of 10+.

[Captain Del]

Originally Posted by Swash

Why should Disney care about 6 year olds playing this game? It's rated E-10 which means if a 6 year old sees a pirate shooting a Navy soldier and their mom or dad doesn't like it and tries to sue they'd automatically lose just because of the rating saying all content is directed to people ages 10+. Most if not all 10 year olds know what happens when you shoot someone and a large amount of them have shot an animal such as a deer, duck, squirrel, etc. That being said Disney is not responsible for a 9 year old or younger seeing something bad on this game. They are only responsible for the age group of 10+.

So it's ok if an accident happens, as long as somebody under the age of 6 was involved? This isn't a matter of lawsuits, this is a matter of caring about the well being of CHILDREN.

And no, I''ve never met somebody who is under the age of 7, and gone hunting. That's a very vulnerable age to be shooting something, IMO.

P.S. I'm sorry if this seems like a direct rant, but I'm just trying to get a point across.

[Swash]

I'm not saying they don't care about them, I'm saying they aren't responsible for them.

[ex8404]

Originally Posted by Swash

Why should Disney care about 6 year olds playing this game? It's rated E-10 which means if a 6 year old sees a pirate shooting a Navy soldier and their mom or dad doesn't like it and tries to sue they'd automatically lose just because of the rating saying all content is directed to people ages 10+. Most if not all 10 year olds know what happens when you shoot someone and a large amount of them have shot an animal such as a deer, duck, squirrel, etc. That being said Disney is not responsible for a 9 year old or younger seeing something bad on this game. They are only responsible for the age group of 10+.

So...no one under 17 has ever played GTA because of it's rating? The argument that ratings alone absolves Disney from lawsuits doesn't hold water. Even if they won a lawsuit, the damage is done.

Del's points are valid and well delivered.

[Swash]

Originally Posted by ex8404

So...no one under 17 has ever played GTA because of it's rating? The argument that ratings alone absolves Disney from lawsuits doesn't hold water. Even if they won a lawsuit, the damage is done.

Del's points are valid and well delivered.

But it's not Disney's fault. If the child is under the age of 10 while playing this game then it's the parents fault for anything the child sees. Also I didn't say no one under the age of 17 has played GTA, nor did I say no one under the age of 10 has played this because for one thing the ESRB ratings aren't the law, they are recomendations.

[Florence]

well dont you think if we would be able to use guns on navy soliders and undead, it would be easier to defeat them?

[Swash]

Originally Posted by Florence

well dont you think if we would be able to use guns on navy soliders and undead, it would be easier to defeat them?

Why would it be? If a grenade can't defeat a Navy soldier in one explosion then it will take several shots to defeat them