ZACH P. WRITES: “My parents have recently allowed me to pick up copies of
Mafia II and Red Dead Redemption. I’ve finished Mafia II, and am now
playing through a second time, and I’ve played enough to open up the
world on Red Dead Redemption.

I’m sixteen, and, I think, reasonably mature for my age. I
know that it’s my parents’ call, in the end, but my question is, are
my parents contradicting themselves by allowing me to play Mafia II
and Red Dead Redemption but not GTA IV? I’m not asking you to tell my
parents to let me play, but I just want to know, would that be a
contradiction?”

GAMERDAD HERE:

Yes. And No. As you say this is up to your parents because there is no law out there that says parents have to be reasonable or make sense. But I do see your point and this question made me think about it. What IS the difference between these three games?

Violence: All three have brutal violence with a gigantic body count. All three have blood and the killing of innocent people is an optional pursuit.

All three have The Law, who can make life difficult – but the law in all three are pretty bumbling. Let’s just say that in all three Johnny Lawman seems to die easily. All three have drug deals, though this only happens in one option quest in Red Dead, it’s plot crucial in the two others. Particularly Mafia II, where the plot hinges on a drug deal. All three let you drink alcohol and produces a dizzy effect. All three feature cigarette or small cigar smoking. All three feature anti-heroes manipulated to do wrong.

All three have… oh, lets just go to the differences:

GTA has the most sex. Not nudity, just dancing with a stripper and a clever offscreen twist that proves that the character Niko Bellic loves the ladies. Both of these can be done anytime you want.

Despite the whorehouses Red Dead doesn’t feature sex until a very abrupt film interlude where a Mexican Captain is seen graphically (if clothed) sex on the table scene. It’s graphic because of the thrusting and his bare male ass… nuff said.

Mafia II is like Red Dead. No strippers, no hookers, no sex except a non-interactive scene showing oral sex in a club and another where a man has sex with a woman on a kitchen counter. Nothing interactive but more obvious than ever.

All three involve criminal acts but the heroes are redeemed in some way. Mafia is the weakest at this because Vito only wants to rise in the family – any of the families – but he’s essentially a criminal through and through.

Niko Bellic is similar except he has more reservations about crime. He still does it but clearly by the end he’s being influenced by an Irish girl to go straight. This doesn’t go well.

Red Dead has a villain but he’s redeemed before the story starts. Unlike the others, Marston fights nothing but bad guys for the missions proper and the side missions all involve him being very nice. At the end, he heads so, intending to do evil no more. Too bad that law is a bad guy here.

GTA IV has one other mark against it in that it takes place in modern times. It feels more “real” than the other two.

All three are spectacular games and rated M

If I had to rank them I’d go:

Red Dead Redemption

GTA IV

Mafia 2

But that depends on what offends your parents. Some parents are more comfortable moving to the past for this kind of game. So, will this convince Zach’s parents?  I don’t know, but I will say that your boy has already played two notorious games. The third won’t hurt him and he is just one year shy of playing them anyway.

Still these three are rated M, which is 17+

However, they still continue to deny me
GTA IV. I’m sixteen, and, I think, reasonably mature for my age. I
know that it’s my parents’ call, in the end, but my question is, are
my parents contradicting themselves by allowing me to play Mafia II
and Red Dead Redemption but not GTA IV? I’m not asking you to tell my
parents to let me play, but I just want to know, would that be a
contradiction?

Tags: AskGamerDad