Slashdot Mirror
Parents Ignore Age Ratings?
GamesIndustry.biz has news of a ELSPA-funded research project that indicates that parents do not pay attention to ratings when purchasing games. From the article: "According to Freund, the study found a high awareness of the existence of videogame age ratings both among young gamers and among their parents - but parents tend to 'divorce themselves' from active involvement in deciding what their children play."
"... but parents tend to 'divorce themselves' from active involvement in deciding what their children play."
My dad didn't have any problem with me seeing R rated movies or playing violent video games at a young age. Was he 'divorced' from it? Eh, maybe. On the other hand, I never gave him a reason to worry.
So what bearing does my anecdote have on anything? Nothing terribly substantial, other than GTA3 sold over 30 million copies yet there has been like 2 incidents blamed on it.
"Derp de derp."
Interesting. I was recently reading the 2004 report issued by theESA(Entertainment Software Association) and it claims some 92% of parents are present at the time games are purchased or rented. Additionally, some 87% of children get parental permission before purchasing or renting a video game.
These statistics are compiled from a dozen or so gaming companies such as Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, EA and others. I'm guessing the data could be slightly skewed to paint a more favorable picture. Though I'm more include to believe parents, on average, just don't care what kind of games there children are playing.
... the OFLC (Office of Film and Literature Classification) has just changed the classification markings system for games and movies - they now both use the same markings and have the same rating systems (though video games don't have a 'restricted' rating yet, which means anything harsher than an MA15+ gets refused classification - but that's a whole different kettle of fish).
Part of the reason for doing this was to make it more obvious for parents when buying games for their kids that they might not be suitable. I guess its for those stupid parents that don't actually excercise critical thinking when they pick up a box of Deathstalker V: The Bloodening. Now they can clearly see its got a red sticker on it and will (theoretically) be more inclined to realise that it is Bad For Kids, because they remember that the red sticker is for grown-ups, because they saw it at the movies.
I think its a good idea and hopefully those parents that would otherwise blindly buy their kids unsuitable titles will think about it a little bit more.
I mean, pretty much every store I've seen has the ESRB ratings inside with warnings on them. Personally, I think the issue is that too many parents expect someone else to just tell them what to do. Myself and a friend of mine were in a software store when a kid walked in (9 years old) wanting to buy Soldier of Fortune. We actually took the 5 seconds to point out the easily readable sign and explain why something like "Diablo" (T for Teen) was more acceptable for his age perhaps, or something like that.
I'm not necessarily against laws regarind video games as long as they're logical and thought out (example: M rated games behind the counter? Makes sense. M rated games 5 feet above the floor? Stupid, and discriminating against short people.) But until we have parents at least make the minimal effort, I don't want to hear them bitching.
This said as a father of three children who plays games with the little rug rats (we've finished "Ocarina of Time" and, after a bout with "Paper Mario" will be hitting "Chrono Trigger").
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Sky is Blue, water is wet, and, Parents arent parenting properly.
[senator]
There's got to be a way we can fix this with legislation
[/senator]
Seriously though, every time this point is brought up (that parents don't stop their kids from doing things the government thinks the kids shouldn't be doing) I fear that another little facet of personal responsibility is soon to be sealed off.
That much is obvious in this classic tale.
Smokers ignore Surgeon General's warning?!?! Really though, I have seen a parent walk into a game store and slam a copy of GTA on the counter, demanding a refund due to the nature of the game that they bought for their child the day before!
Scene: Mother walking through Wal-Mart with 1-3 eight year old brats in tow.
"Mommy, buy me this" "No"
"Mommy, buy me this" "No"
"Mommy, buy me this" "No"
"Mommy, buy me this" "No"
"Mommy, buy me this" "No"
"Mommy, buy me this" "No"
"Mommy, buy me this" "No"
"Mommy, buy me this" "No"
"Mommy, buy me this" "OK!! OK!! Just STFU!!" (Que other shop patrons looking agast at loud use of foul language.)
Checkout Clerk - "Ma'am, do you know that Grand Theft Auto 3 is a mature rated game, more suitable for kids in their mid to late teens?"
Mother - "Whatever, as long as they aren't having sex with hookers and then beating the hookers up, it's fine"
Checkout Clerk - "Well, actually, you..."
Mother (interupting) - "Tyler, put that lamp down this instant" (runs off with merchandise).
And many of them don't take any responsibility for anything, including taking care of or managing their kids.
At some stage, parents may realise they aren't doing their kids any favors. But maybe never.
Then they wonder why their kids are little shits and why their friends don't want to socialize as much any more.
PS. I am over 50 and I am still a kid and a geek.
Daily News http://newsblaze.com
Parents, teachers, and nosey bystanders worry too much. Kids know the difference between game violence and real violence, and use games as a safe outlet for their frustrations. Every day, thousands of innocent little children are tricked into clicking goatse links in web forums. A violent game isn't going to do any harm, nor is a rated R movie. Chances are they know what violence is, they know what profanity is, and they've more than once practiced both without having learned it from games or the media.
I ignore those ratings.
Then again, I personally check into the games and movies my children get.
My friends, reviews and my own two eyes are much more accurate than those ratings, plus I know the maturity level of each of my children.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
The problem is that you can't pin the blame for this on ignorance or bad parenting. I think a huge part of the problem is that parents don't equate games with other forms of entertainment, like movies. They still think of games as something that's only for children, and then ratings are ignored. "Yeah, it says eighteen, but it must be OK, because it's a GAME, and those are made for kids, right?" This also explains the huge outrage that leads to headlines like "Hookers getting killed in video game", while no recent newspaper has had a headline of "Hookers getting killed in latest movie".
This misconception will be hard to change, but hopefully it will be gone in a generation, when us modern gamers become parents ourselves.
I recently went out and got video games for, my older sisters kid (8), my little brother (12) and my little sister (16). I ignored the ratings. Hell, I didn't even check the ratings. Why?
1) The ratings are stupid to begin with. Who decided what a "teen" game is. Who in the hell decided that "cartoon violence" is a 10+ game? Trying to set some magical age barrier up is stupid. I knew a girl who was 22 and couldn't sit through an PG-13 rated movie because her parents had so thoroughly sheltered her. My little brother on the other hand had no problems watching Blade with me and following it up by reading a dozen vampire books. Trusting a some foolish rating system to raise your kids is lazy.
2) I checked into the games myself. I didn't use the stupid rating system. I learned what each game before I bought it. Glacing at their website and hitting up a review only takes a couple of minutes. Hell, the back of the box should give you a pretty friggin good idea.
So, does the stat that most parents ignore the ESRB ratings mean anything? No. Show me a stat showing that parents are ignorant as to what they are buying and there might be some valid point in there (that point being some parents are lazy). Just showing that people ignore the worthless ESRB ratings is just stupid.
My Nephew, IMHO, does have an unhealthy gaming life, he plays too many games, but sadly, there are others who play even more games than him. (there is just an inbalance)
Anyway, he goes out and swaps / buys games once a month, he is 10.
He comes back with an R game, it just looked like some cool sports game, I think it was one of those 'scaintily clad pixels' games.
His choices do get vetted, and I think it is hypocritical to allow children to role play cowboys and indians, and then to be worried about the colour of blood in a computer game.
Needless to say, this game was taken off him before he could play it, but the reasons were explained nicely.
If GTA* series would allow parental locks two things would happen:
The game could ship with blood turned off, and swearing and lewdness, the parent could lock this. Why? WHY? you will say.
Well, because, just like the SIX BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR THE TOBACCO COMPANIES MAKE ON UNDERAGE SMOKING IN THE US ALONE computer games will be sold to people under the advised limit.
Also, you might want to play this game, with sound, in a house which has you children and "Yo mother fucker n* lets take this whoring bitch and fuck her ass good" might not be a great cut scene to have play across your 6.1's.
Now, R* deliberately put lots of non-violent adult themes to force the issue of adult nature.
i.e. no body complains too much about porn, but that is because it is only generally *very* interesting to those entering adult hood anyway, because of biology.
Violence definately attracts the young, and kids immitate EVERYTHING from mortal combat to GTA. Cowboys and Indians becomes Da Boyz and Da Pigz, bow and arrows and romanticised rifles become 9's and uzis.
Instead of smoking the peace pipe, they eerr, smoke the peace crack pipe.
It does affect children, children always pick up on what is acceptable, and the more loose the boundaries are, the less they can work it out.
It is arrogant for US (people who are currenlty over 20) to have an opinion on what makes people violent, in our forming years the graphics were SHIT. A reason why many parents who do not think about these things, don't realise the realism involved.
So, unless you have an NVidia geforce chipset when you were 10, shut the fuck up complaining about the courts and parent groups concerned about violent video games: you cannot prove they are not sold to kids, they can, as a player (PLAYA) of violent video games, I appreciate their concerns.
Now for once, take a balanced view. (that goes for pennyarcade too - they are a rack short of a hosting server if you ask me - defend the right to play violent games, not the violent games themselves - let the fuckers at EA games, who make fuckloads of cash spend some of it ensuring the violence doesn't reach children)
-1 going against the grain
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
I have a brother who has friends, and friends and friends. Well if you ask ANY of them what they're favorite game is they are going to say Grand Theft Auto. My brother isnt stupid. He knows whats wrong and whats right and hes 9. I remember walking into the local wal mart to pick up the new Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The lady there said can i see you id? I hand her the ID which clearly says im 17 years old. She then replys "Your not old enough." Hell broke loose after that. Anyway the point is that the workers of these stores dont even know what the ratings mean, even with working in the electronics. Of course i dont shop there anymore.
I live in 2 worlds, one I can hurt one I shouldn't
In one if I was to hold up a store or shoot up people one I shouldn't even punch for fun. If I hurt in one world nobody cares, I can go about doing it more and then i get bored. In my other world If i was to hurt at all people would be outraged at me i wouldn't be able to do anything.
I understand the rules of both worlds and I live both diffrently I never cross one with the other, if I did there would be major problems.
On a side note, GTA games should not cause problems if it affected them then the real world would affect them in the game so they wouldn't have become a violent abusive person and wouldn't have caused problems in the begining.
I've have seen this exact thing when I worked in a video game store eons ago. I can remember thinking "It's called Grand Theft Auto, what did you think it was, a mathematics study aid?"
-- I have fans? Wow.
Parents also ignore their children.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
So I too grew with a bunch of violence on TV. My parents had some... unorthodox views regarding censoring TV. For example, I was allowed to see wild west movies (lynchings, shootings and all), on account that there the good guys always win.
I saw my first horror movie on VHS at the age of 10. Two of them, in fact. My brother was 6 at the time. Okay, so he was scared into shock. I was a little more robust, presumably on account of being older.
Even earlier, we occasionally had the honour of seing grandma chop the head off a chicken to make food, on the summer vacation in the country. Oooer. Now that was a crying festival for me and my brother.
(Which brings me to another question: the why the heck is it OK for the kids to watch Tom And Jerry and other violent cartoons? One thing I still remember is that kids are very good at anthropomorphising. See the crying festival for the chicken, or when grandma's cat got poisoned. So why isn't anyone worried then about violent cartoons?)
Etc.
So more than two decades later, I haven't killed anyone, haven't assaulted anyone, and generally I haven't even had a jaywalking ticket yet. I'm a firm believer in, well, what can be best described as a "lawful good" approach to the world. Though even that most likely due to mom preaching that, than because of those western movies.
Ditto about my brother.
An older family friend, now that was a bit more nuts. Taught his 2 year old son to play Wolfenstein 3D. (Not "Return To".) I doubt that the poor kid even understood what was happening there, but did as good a job of spraying lead everywhere with the machinegun as the stereotypical gangster-movie mobster.
As far as I know, the kid hasn't killed or assaulted anyone yet.
So, well, ok, I'm willing to take your point that maybe I'm blinded to whatever grievous damage all that did to me, my brother or the other kid mentioned. Well, then you tell me, please: _what_ symptoms should I be looking for?
Because so far it seems to me like while, yes, a game or a movie (Tom And Jerry cartoons included) _can_ give someone ideas and questions, those ideas (or any other ideas) don't exist in a vaccuum. They're judged and fit into the general framework that that person has. As a kid, the framework that their parents and environment gave them.
You're not an automaton which simply executes anything without thinking. If you played a game about jumping off bridges (e.g., City Of Heroes heroes never die when falling), you won't just jump off a bridge to get down faster. Even if the idea does briefly come to mind (I'll admit, it did come to _my_ mind), it'll be judged against that framework you have, filed under "you'd break your legs or die if you tried that", and dismissed.
So for someone to get influenced by, say, GTA (a game which explicitly tells you that that stuff is illegal) to the point where they get their parent's gun and shoot a car driver, that framework must be deffective or largely missing to start with. If a game explicitly tells someone "this stuff is illegal. It's a crime. It can get the cops all over you" and they still do it, you have to wonder if the whole meaning of "illegal" and "crime" was missing from their mental model.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
My cousin, it turns out, bought Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for her eleven-year-old son.
When I heard that, it was all I could do to avoid doing a double-take. Mind you, she wasn't very concerned that he was interested in Dungeons & Dragons, which I had attributed to being rather cool of her (this is a region in which, to most folk, D&D all but equals Forces Of Ultimate Darkness).
I don't know if she knows what the game's about or anything, or that it's filled with profanity, or contains situations very inappropriate for children -- you see, I don't think exposure to games like this warp kids' minds, but I am a bit concerned with the impression that what is depicted within is somehow normal, or even right, and kids *are* suceptable to that, especially when, on the schoolyard, they encounter other kids who'll try to emulate the behaviour patterns seen in games and movies in an effort to see "cool."
What could I do against that kind of thing? Only thing I could: I brought over Katamari Damacy, and nearly flipped when I saw his jaw drop open when he saw the last level would take the humble ball from 1 meter all the way to 300m, and beyond. When he saw that the very island on which the level began would become part of the ball by the end....
You're probably wondering how can this be any kind of remedy to GTA? It's simple: it's all about perspective. Just like Katamari Damacy is about how the world looks different, and yet suspeciously similar, when viewed at 5cm and 200m. It's all about exposing kids to as many different influences as they can get, making sure they get to see the really cool and unique along with the crap with which our culture is filled, and trusting that they'll be able to sort it all out for themselves.
So, I really think Katamari Damacy should be played in schools.
I don't know, maybe violent games do effect kids... after my 7-year-old boy played Jedi Academy for a couple weeks, one of his classmates was "shooting" at him with his finger and my son "went Jedi" on him and knocked him down. He had never been aggressive before.
Mehh, maybe it had nothing to do with JA. I asked him, "did you Force Push him?"
"No, Dad. I just pushed him down."
Nevertheless, I only let him play E rated games anymore, with JA only once a week (well, I can't make the poor kid quit cold turkey!)
I once called her into the room to see what was happening when he played San Andreas (he was in a sex shop and some lady was walking around with her boobs hanging out). She was flat-out shocked, she had no idea they allowed stuff like that in video games. Of course, then her reaction was "Eh, he's 14, he can handle it" - but if he'd been 10, she wouldn't have paid any more attention before letting him get the game, and probably would have been much more pissed that her son was exposed to this.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
A few days later you get an angry parent yelling at you and demanding a refund for selling an "inappropriate" game or music to their little angel of a child. Riiight..so now it's my(the retailers) fault. Not your fault for failing to read the box, and not your little angels fault for picking the game up knowing what the games content is. Hell, if mom or dad took a look at the box art it might have helped them get a clue. Take GTA3 : San Andreas http://azz.gouranga.com/images/sa/sa_boxart_big.jp g. I think the guy's leaning out of the car shooting would have been the first big clue as to the game content along with the blonde bending over licking her lips suggestivily, but that's just me.
Parents need to start getting involved with their kids activities. I grew up playing games and I still play them, but when i was younger my mother watched what I bought. If she didn't like I wasn't allowed to buy or play it. When she found my Doom floppies she took a magnet to them, but a year later I was able to play it in her eyes. Just the last week she called me up to ask if my fiance and I are planning on getting an Xbox 360. She's in her 50's and I'm 30 and she's still has a clue about my interests and even recommend a good wireless router.
My nine-going-on-ten year old loves his PS2, moreso since I put a wireless bridge on it so he can play games online. I buy his games, and I always look at the ratings; but then I consider what kind of game it is too. I'll even let him play M rated games depending on the circumstances. For instance, he loves Return to Castle Wolfenstein, which is rated M for truly horrid looking creatures, ghastly Nazi experiments, and scary stormtroopers. But it's basically Indiana Jones meets a horror movies. He can handle that, so Wolfenstein is in. He asked for Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, however, and Daddy said "Hell No". Because, in my parental opinion, the former game is sci-fi/horror fantasy, and the latter glorifies real criminal behavior. That's my call as a father to make. He also can't have God of War because it supposedly contains some pretty explicit sexual scenes, so that's out.
The parent has to use their best judgement. My nephew isn't allowed to play Wolfenstein type games (he's the same age as my son) because he's still terrirfied of things that go bump in the night. You can't take that kid to a horror movie. He curls up and covers his eyes. So his parents act accordingly with his computer entertainment.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The ratings system is too simple. You really want to say this thing you're watching contains the following possibly offensive material that you may or may not want to subject your kids to: blood gore 4-letter words partial nudity etc instead of putting a single letter trying to sum it all up. That just doesn't work since it too simplified to accomodate everyone.
I grew up on a farm.
.22 rifle by the time I was eight, albeit with close adult supervision. On weekends my brother and I would take air rifles into our barns and hoghouses and do search-and-destroy for sparrows and rats. Part of this was necessity, in that you don't want pests infesting your grain and hay and feed. Part of it was that it was fun.
.45 ACP nowadays, not air rifles and .22 rimfires. I've never been arrested; never been accused of any crime more serious than a minor moving violation. I pay my taxes, I vote in almost every possible election (including school board elections), and while I've fallen away from organized religion I drop in on my old padre once every two weeks to have lunch and talk faith.
I saw my first steer get slaughtered when I was about seven. We didn't believe in using sledgehammers, as meatpacking plants do. We thought a twelve-gauge deer slug between the eyes was more humane. I was shooting a
Today I'm thirty years old. I shoot skeet and
You think the problem today is the graphics? I had photorealistic violence. I had the real deal. I stood there with a twelve-gauge and put a steer's brains out through the back of its head. It rattled me at first, doesn't anymore. I patrolled a farm on rat and sparrow detail and did a pretty good job of it. That didn't rattle me.
Anyone who says exposure to photorealistic violence is causing kids to go crazy knows nothing about the everyday violence of rural America, or how normal we turn out.
P.S.: Yes, it's rare that animals get slaughtered on farms nowadays; usually that happens at meatpacking plants. However, from time to time it does happen. We had a small meat plant which bought cattle from us, and they didn't care much whether it was alive or dead when they hauled it away. Rather than have our cattle be condemned to a sledgehammer, we decided to grant them the mercy of a gunshot. The small meatpacker wouldn't do this themselves, on account of ammunition costs money and sledgehammers are cheap.
While I definately think that parents should be the first-line defense against such things, and pay attention to what their children are up to, we do have to be a bit realistic about this. If little Billy has turned his room into a factory and is making bomb materials, collecting rifles, and preparing to be a front-page news article... parents should notice. However, kids can be extremely good at hiding things. Wires and batteries etc, "oh mom, that's a science project for school," or perhaps dad just thinks he's got a bright kid with an inquisitive mind. Certainly some of the things I fiddled around with could have *looked* dangerous.
Now when it gets down to video games, if mom won't buy it, borrow it from Johnny down the street. Kids will get what they want. However, I do believe that my PS2 had a feature to lock down games based on an internal rating... how about that but with an adjustable scale setting? Better than yet, since passwords are a pain in the ass... that is *one* time I could see a specially coded dongle being actually useful (with the password as backup). Dongle is USB port, allow games of content "X"... no dongle, no game, no matter if Billy bought it from the store himself somehow or borrowed it from Johnny.
At the end of the day, you should still have a decent awareness of what your kids are up, but banning violent games is no more intelligent than banning adult magazines. Each has their place, and while it might not harm your kid if he manages to snag your copy of Playboy, you should probably be aware if he gets to the point where he is downloading "extreme hardcore" online with your credit card...
There is nothing shocking about the slaughter of animals, and when I was young I watched animals being killed for food. Yes it jolts you, any death does, but it is food.
Violence in video games is human violence. It is a violence that blurs the lines between acceptable social behaviour.
French kids drink wine from a young age, they do not binge drink wine in their teens. Society programmed them. Fashion is also a social programming. When to wear clothes, what to wear etc.
You were trained to do this job, because you grew up on a farm.
I do not even consider what you saw was violence.
Violence isn't an act, it is a sentiment. You can cut someones face into pieces, in a calm manner of a plastic surgeon performing a lift.
Or a nut case ripping with a blunted hook.
Now, the violent themes in film have long been considered not suitable for children? Why? Becuase they are not mature enough to realise in some cases, that this is not a socially acceptable thing to do, or, realistically (and dont rely thinking I said watcing one movie will turn them into something regardless of their own personality or upbringing, ffs) it will scare and frighten them, and that isn't nice.
Now, you can show a violent film to kids, that is the parents choice, in fact, these are predominantly for the parents, who usually have the money.
Violence and other adult themes such as swearing and nudity / sex also have reasons for shieldin them from young people.
Do you agree or disagree?
Now, we are talking about games, and you sotry had *nothing* to do with violence (see first point* or games, or laws limiting mass media portrays of cruelty by humans to minors.
I am pro-gaming, heck, I would write a sim today that allowed you to pick off people in a mall until the cops come, and stand by it as fun. because it is a game dynamic.
Yes the sentiment is sick, and wrong. But it is a game. Kids run around shooting each other.
It is less about kids will become violent, although games can fuel agression, like driving in traffic does.
You have seen a clockwork orange? Well yesteryear, gaming priciples were abstract, more so than running around with cap pistols going pow pow.
This yellow blip was the indian, and this red blip was the cowboy.
even the carmegeddon era / mortal kombat had enough realism to realise that gaming graphical portrayals are close enough to video that the material should be labelled. fine, also, to HELP THE DUMBASS parents, put laws stopping their kids.
Now, these fuckface parents don't tell their kids, what game did you buy, let me see, oh no, they blame the companies who made the game.
Grow up, people are producing porn, you want to sue them in case your kid finds a smuty mag?
Anyway, I am against the idea of Germany forcing censorship of games, but they have their own stigma against violence.
I am against people not even seeing the point, and sidestepping issues, and talking shit, like you just did.
Normal you say? how normal is it to talk so much, and not realise you missed the fucking point.
People kill animals for food, yes, and in the same world, people classify movies based on violent themes as well as other factors.
You think that is somehow related?
fucks sake, dont make me explain myself again.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Guess what? I've never committed a violent crime. I've never held up a convenience store. I've never abused a woman or mistreated a woman. I'm a completely normal person earning a great living in a respectable career with no more or worse personal issues than your average fellow.
Always with the money... Being a decent, happy person just isn't enough.
i've always thought this was total bs. what affects kids is how they are parented and how they are taught to deal with situations, generally by mimicing what their parents do.
do their parents hug them and tell them how much they care?
do they try to stay involved and understand their child as they grow old?
or
are they a bunch of dumb fucking lazy slobs that want to blame the media because they don't have a clue about how to raise a child and should have been castrated?