Slashdot Mirror
Game Content Ratings Not Always To Be Trusted?
Thanks to Reuters for its article discussing video games rated 'T' for teens containing 'explicit' content that's not noted on the game box. According to Harvard-based researchers checking on the voluntary ESRB ratings for videogames: "Although most of the games' content matched their ratings, [the survey] found that 48 percent of games contained some content that was not noted on the game box." The piece goes on to note specific examples: "For instance, 12 of the 81 games showed the use of substances such as tobacco and alcohol, while only 1 game had received that type of content descriptor from the ESRB. And while the researchers reported sexual content in 22 games, only 16 had received a sexual content descriptor" - the survey abstract at the American Medical Association's site has further information on the researchers' results.
Over on Fark there is a debate going on about parental discipline vs. child abuse. The running theme is that parents who are consistent and firm with their children turn out well-adjusted kids whereas parents who are inconsistent and abusive turn out some really fucked up gems.
It seems to me that a parent who would take the time and effort to fall in the first category would also be the kind of parent who spent 5 seconds looking at the video game and deciding whether the kid should be allowed to play it or not.
OTOH, parents who do not put that time and effort in to raising their kids would be the type to just shell out 40 dollars to shut the kid up for a week.
It's no wonder that kids who play these violent and sexually explicit games turn into the freaks they are. It isn't the games, it's the parents.
I have been pwned because my
ESRB ratings> are intended to get parents to pay attention to their kids lives. They are placed to get parents to notice that videogames are a part of childrens lives, the same as television.
""The absence of a content descriptor did not mean the absence of content that might concern parents," she[study author Kimberly Thompson] said."
If parents talked to their children about the things that they are doing, viz. active members in their lives, they will know that the child is playing videosgames with such content in it. Think. (are you ready) Think some more. When as a child, you played duke nukem, did the you discuss your gaming with your parents? I did. I told them all about how hillarious the game was. The hillarity is one that can be experienced only through the game, but in my explination of it, they understood that the beercans strewn around stripclubs where one is killing stripping aliens was funny. They were not offended in any way with the content of the game, only with my choice to play it instead of doing homework late at night.
The warnings on videogames are not meant for parents to keep children confined by having them not purchase such games, but to brace parents for the content of the game when the child discusses it with them.
I think Ms. Thompson understands this aspect of the gaming experience, perhaps in a familial if not personal way.
"She[study author Kimberly Thompson] added that she hopes these study results serve as a "wake up call" for parents, telling them they need to be aware of what their kids are being exposed to, both in video games and elsewhere."
This study is meant to shine light on parent's lack of involvement in children's lives, not asking for more strict ratings. Lets face it, if anyone makes blanket judgements on ratings, they are being ignorant of the product's value.
-i wish i were a teapot. That way if when im boiling you could pour me out.-
"this is the gloaming"
radiohead
I never figured out why we have a separating rating system for games when there is a perfectly good rating system for the movie industry that could be used.(I assume its some legal hullabaloo)
Anyways alot of Parents don't really know what the video game rating system entails, and because of not really knowing they will let there kid play whatever the hell they want, instead of making an informed decision that maybe that game where you play inmates that dig at each other with rusty hooks might not be suitable.
Now with the Movie rating system most people know what the hell the ratings are , or at least have a general idea. Your not going to let your 13 year old go to the R film (Heck most theatres won't even let your kid in) but the M rating on that game, your not quite sure about.
So what to do.. either raise awareness on what the ratings actually are and entail and make sure that the games get rated correctly (personally I am surprised that Manhunt only got mature) or scrap the system and rebuild from the ground up.
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
Parents dont come with a Parental Skill Rating attached to their foreheads... :-/
Are there even any regulations or standards that say what kind of games get what rating? Starcraft came out with a Teen rating, but when it's expansion pack Brood War came out, it was stamped Mature, even though nothing major was changed from Starcraft.
The truth behind the ratings is they are rarely used correctly. The developers shoot for a particular rating, then get the board to agree or disagree. Just like the movies.
Some games are mismarked, like Tony Hawk 3. It says "E" for everyone, but fails to mention the blood and swearing. I personally would still let anyone play it, since the context of the blood and swearing is appropriate. Some would disagree. Like a previous few comments, you have to play with or watch your kids play games if you want to know what they're playing.
But, since the ratings are goals, and not ends, you'll have kiddie games elevated to teen with gratuitous bodily functions, blood effects, and such. You'll have teen games elevated to Mature with bouncy boobs and over-the-top violence--despite these things being very purile, but fun! By elevating the ratings, the games are more enticing to the target audience because it's taboo, and you may pull in a couple people in the "as rated" audience who think it's for their age, not their kids.
Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. Teen (PG-13) is the desired audience for almost all games. You don't want an "M" unless you feel you'll sell a lot of them on the first day. The first Mortal Kombat is a great example how to ruin a game by dumbing down the violence for a broader audience.
So in the end, the games that are rated properly seem like the ones that are mismatched with the ratings! Just like the movies.
What we really need is a consistent rating system for all forms of entertainment. Movies, television, video games and music should use the same system to avoid confusion about exactly what a rating means in one system verses another. I'm not sure how to go about doing that since these industries are all independent, and I'm reluctant to get the Government involved in a ratings system, but I think it would be the best solution for kids and parents.
If the in-game characters are not clearly using tobacco or alcohol (e.g. they are smoking something or drinking out of a bottle, but the vice is just implied, not explicit) I don't see why it's a problem.
They could be smoking clove cigarettes and drinking no-alcohol beer for all these nannies know.
I am surprised no historians have dug up Roman Empire artifacts saying their violence came from playing too much video games.
The rating system is completely lame. My local news has more violence, sex and tobacco use.
How do they define these things? If even a background character smokes, is that counted as tobacco use? It's just a realistic background, nothing more.
Whenever I'm out in public and I see someone's bare ass, I giggle. Seriously. I'm probably scarred for life, because I once saw a bare ass somewhere before I turned 18.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.