Slashdot Mirror
Parents 'ignore game age ratings'
Jim Hall writes "With all the fervor recently over the 'Hot Coffee' mod and the upcoming 'Bully' game, I found it interesting that no press time seems to have been given to this little gem from the BBC: Parents 'ignore game age ratings'. I think most of us agree that the games are already rated appropriate to their audience - GTA:SA was previously rated "M" (17 and up) in the US, before public outcry forced the ESRB to move it to "AO" (18 and up). However, as this article points out, parents are more concerned about children spending too many hours playing games, rather than about what type of title they were playing."
Mr Freund suggested that the problem was that parents felt disconnected from the world of video games and so showed little interest in this aspect of their children's lives.
"Parents are too divorced from what teenagers play," he said.
Most parents are too divorced from nearly all aspects of their children's lives because they are too wrapped up in their own and the lives of those they live vicariously through via the television.
As long as the television isn't telling them that the video games are bad and the politicians aren't doing "their job" and telling parents that the video games are bad then they must be just fine.
Remember, everyone wants the politicians living inside the little electrical box to tell them what to do. Anything else is too much added stress - unless they can place the blame on someone else.
We start focusing on the issue described in this article ; as a society it is entirely hypocritical for us to decry game ratings when we do not enforce them ourselves.
The rating isn't some kind of magic shield that prevents your child from playing the game, parents - YOU have to use your discretionnary power(i.e. MONEY) to influence your child's gaming habits (i.e NOT BUY THE "M" GAMES).
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Any of us young enough to have asked our parents to buy games which had ratings (myself included) knew this. Trying to tell teenagers what they can and cannot see is stupid, and will not work. Anyway, "Most parents think their child is mature enough so that these games will not influence them." (the article.)
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
(columbine, anyone?)
The ratings are there as a guide, but everyone knows, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
That's where all the bad colts come from....
I'm only 30, so I don't consider myself old just yet, but I must say that I found the game "Flat Out" to be just totally unnecessary. While racing games are good fun, I just can't how an obstacle course where the object is to fling the driver through the windshield could be anything but disturbing. What is up with people these days? Are they so desensitized that the only way to entice them to play a video game is with things like this?
libertarianswag.com
Plus, maybe the 18+ games should not be mixed in with the other games. Maybe they should be kept in an area where kids can't shop them with all the other titles. Like they keep 18+ magazines behind the counter. If a parent wants to buy it, they can ask for it.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I can ignore the speed limit if I want to. It doesn't mean I'll be allowed to sue somebody every time I get a ticket.
People are responsible for their own mistakes.
It just doesn't apply to "M" games, only "AO".
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
I suspect most of the fervor about this didn't come from the parents in the first place. The thing is, yes, most parents want to protect their children... but most of them also know that the world does contain scary/violent/sexual things, and they're less concerned with sex on television than whether their kid is doing drugs. This is as it should be.
If you're trying to get a child to turn out well-adjusted, which is more important... making sure the kid is never exposed to sex, or making sure he actually goes outside sometimes and makes friends and has a life?
All this says, I think, is that most people really do believe the latter. Media hype generally ignores this... but since when has the media cared about reality? Remember the West Nile Virus, which is really not much more dangerous than influenza? The 'sex bracelets' which most kids had never heard of before the TV was claiming they were all having middle school orgies? This isn't any different.
Kellogs...
Please tell me no one is surprised by this...
Parents simply assume all games are designed for children. The folks in the government seem to assume the same thing.
They care more about shutting their kids up by whatever means necessary. "Yes yes ok here's that new game now let daddy watch football".
Idiots.
My parrents let me get pretty much anything but FPS or stuff like GTA. Doesn't make much difference to me I like MMORPGs anyways.
But I do think that depending on who it is parrents need to enforce what games they allow their child to play.
I have said this before on a different topic but sit down and play the games with your kids Yes they most likely will beat you badly but it is still fun. My son loves to crush me in Halo 2 but I have a blast I have played all the games in my house with my kids and we talk about them is it really that hard to spend 30 min or 1 hour with your kids.
This is uncontravertable proof that partents know how to parent than senetors.
I'm a parent and I can honestly say that I don't ignore the warnings. They let me know which ones are the most violent. Those are the ones I buy because they are usually the most fun.
I can't count the number of times I've gone into R rated movies and seen parents bringing young kids.
I mean, come on, people.
Of course parents don't pay attention to the game ratings. They're printed right on the box! in Letters, often Boldfaced, right there!
You'd have to actually read to learn what the rating is!
When's the last time you saw the masses pay attention to anything that has to be read?
As a correlary: How many of you went to see South Park, The movie in the theater? Now how many of you remember sitting within 20 feet of a bunch of little kids?
Exactly.
A) People piss and moan that there aren't enough warnings.
B) Then they ignore them so they can piss and moan about what they were warned about in the first place and demand bans.
C) Then when the thing gets banned, they complain about how the government is too intrusive.
[Almost forgot: D) Profit!]
one word: fucking people.
s'wut i sed.
The ratings system is an excuse for parents to ignore their responsibility to supervise their children and explain the difference between reality and fiction.
On another note does anyone want to join me later on Broadway beating up hookers?
There is no law about selling video games with specific ratings in the US. If such a game happens to contain pornography (I'm not sure about the legality involved with Hot Coffee), it is illegal to sell that. The ratings system is enforced by stores which choose to inforce it, same as the movie rating system, not by law. See US Constitution, Amendment 1.
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
Raise your kids, not mine, has always been my motto.
I am involved in what my kid plays, what he watches, who he hangs with.
I let him be exposed to more and more as his maturity level grew with him.
I showed him consequences for bad behavior.
I explained why bad was bad.
He's seventeen, and a great kid.
Not that I'm taking my hand off the switch just yet.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Just a lil' FYI.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
someone I know split the cost of a new car 50/50 with their daughter. Then she decides to move out and *demands* the car. The car is in her parents name and she barely paid $1000 on it.
The same parents also got conned into buying: a 60" TV, Skis, ski pass, clothes and god knows what. When she moved out: an Xbox, a Bed, another TV, a Sterio...
Parent are so afraid that their kids will come back later and say: you were a BAD parent.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Oh, so THAT's why there are so many fake eminem's on the street these days.
The ratings aren't there for parents or children. They are there to prevent law suits a-la Columbine. It is like the McDonalds coffee suit. Now every cup you get has warnings in some cases (Burger King) it is in several languages!
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
The ESRB ratings are good, but parents should not rely only on the ESRB rating. The ESRB rates games on more that can be read in a review or on the box, so there is some insight there. I think that the ESRB does a good job, but parenting is not their job. In the end parents should be responsible for giving appropriate material to their children. This growing reliance on boards and government agencies to monitor what you and your child are exposed to is getting annoying.
They don't normally catch it on their own.
Case in point: A few years ago I worked at a game store. Woman comes in to get a game for her son and after several questions to narrow down which game it was (she forgot, but knew it had cars in it), I got a copy of the latest GTA game for her to purchase.
After asking if she wanted the hint guide to go along with it, and her refusing, she asked if this game was appropriate for her 12-year old.
"No Ma'am. This game is NOT appropriate for a 12-year old. Each game has a rating on the cover (quick explanation of the rating system) and this one is rated M for Mature. It means you should probably be 17 to play it. We don't enforce it, but we do encourage it." I flipped the copy of GTA over and showed her why it had been rated mature.
Needless to say, a parent left a little more educated and her son did not get the game that day. He probably also got a talking to over trying to get one over on mom, but I don't know that for certain.
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
So because parents refuse to PARENT THEIR OWN KIDS...we have to put up with more and more freaking rating crap.
You know, when are they going to enact a law that says not parenting your children is aliken to child abuse?
BTW, I was reading the ratings on the back of one of my DVDs at home, and one of the reasons it got its rating was because of something called "Brief Language". WTF is 'brief language'??? Who the fk came up with these dumbass rating categories?
here's the link
Ratings seem to fit perfectly within everyone's denial sphere. They help mask objectionable content ("M" gives no indication of levels of sex, violence, or anti-social behaviour) and at the same time, allow parents proceed in the delusion that someone is monitoring what their child is playing for them.
The only rating that many parents seem to be interested in is "appropriate for kids" or not - and that seems to lump T, M or whatever else into the same category...and that's just the way the gaming industry wants it.
I mean what possible logic is there in having a 17 rating (M) and an 18 rating (AO) except to try and blur the line?
The rating is not and should not be used to determine a game's suitability for your child - especially given the disperate range of values people hold. As evidenced by GTA:SA, some parents get very worked up over sex, but are tolerant of violence and glamorizing anti-social behaviour. Other parents might be quite tolerant of sex, but hold a much harder line over violence. They should get informed about the game, but that's harder than checking a letter on the box, or expecting Wal-Mart to make these decisions for you.
As long as there's an uncommunicated desire on the part of consumers (parents AND teenagers) and game manufacturers to keep the ratings vague and generalised - they can't be expected to serve any useful purpose.
The opinion above is fiction. Any similarity to real opinions, including facts and logic, is purely coincidental.
The bitch probably cain't spell, eithur!
about ratings in the first place. There were a few thousand more who heard them bitching and moaning incessantly for years who eventually said, "Yeah, Ok, I guess."
The rest of us simply did what we still do; decide what we are and are not willing to supply our children with on our own. Ratings are meaningless for this and I rather resent the implication that making up my own mind is somehow "wrong."
The ratings are just there to placate those few vocal twits who think they need a panel to make their decisions for them and believe they have the right to enforce that panel on others with more brains.
I am the only rating system that counts for my children. I'll screw 'em up as I see fit. Go screw up your own.
KFG
If our leaders (both Republicans and Democrats) did what they were elected to do, maybe most families wouldn't be burdened with multiple jobs and working parents and they could actually have time to monitor what their kids are playing. You know, when having a stay-at-home parent is a luxury in our society, that's a sign that we're heading down the wrong path. Pointing the finger at parents not only doesn't do any good, but also focuses on a symptom, not the cause.
If you're one of those people jumping to this "blame the parents" bandwagon, I hope you will stop and consider the big picture. If we have societal conditions that are hostile to parenting, how can we expect effective parenting to take place?
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
1) Remove all warning labels on products.
2) Don't let anyone sue a company for something they caused themself. (i.e. use common sense)
3) Let Darwinism take over.
Think about it. You've got a game where the whole point is to steel, kill and blow things up and people are fine with that. But oh, no, show nudity and even a sex scene ... we can't have that now can we? The citizens of this country have one seriously fucked up mentality! It's a never ending source of amazement for me. Oh and remember kids, you can't have manslaughter without laughter!
i don't plan to let my kids touch computers too early (up to 14ish)
i am 20 atm so the earliest i would have game-hungering kids would be in 20 years... thats alot of time, alot is gonna change. for the worse? i don't know. i hope not (i still remember the GREAT non-violent games i got ahold of like 7 years ago...they should make more of those! ie Anno 1602)
but as people have already stated- getting hold of "adult" material is just too easy nowadays, whether in games, TV or newspapers/commercial ads. blocking it in games is far from enough
Three rings for the Elven-kings in the sky
Most parents are too divorced from nearly all aspects of their children's lives because they are too wrapped up in their own and the lives of those they live vicariously through via the television.
I don't feel that the parent post is a Troll. Quite the opposite, I feel that this statement is very insightful about poor parents (which most parents today are). People don't spend time with their kids anymore. They don't get involved in their lives and find out what makes them tick.
I blame the way that everything is so much faster in modern society. People work more and spend less time at home. Then, when they get home, the vast majority of people veg-out in front of the television instead of communicating with family and friends.
A lot of people really do live their lives vicariously through the television. Look at the proliferation of celebrity mags and just how much of the news deals with the lives of athletes and entertainers when there are real issues that affect people's lives that they could be covering. Then consider the popularity of reality television.
And, yes, people really do want politicians to tell them (and more importantly) others how to live and how to raise their kids. Look at the "wardrobe malfunction" flap, the "hot coffee" flap, and many others back through the years. Now, note that most of those who nod their head in agreement don't really want to bother with checkin on their kids themselves. They'd like someone else to package up all the work for them for convenience. This sort of lazy parenting is really way too common.
(Of course, I'm probably only this cynical about parents because I'm the son of two public school teachers who have to deal with the product of bad parenting all the time.)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Note to self : Preview next time. Wanted to add this : here in the UK we have a rating above 18, known as R18, which is used exclusively for pornography. Titles with that rating can only be sold in licensed 'sex shops'.
I'm not kidding.
You know, the problem is that ratings like AO and M just aren't strong enough. Parents see it and it just doesn't look that threatening. They need to have large icons that show the detrimental effect that the game is likely to have on children. Like: TRENCH! (displays picture of a kid in a black trenchcoat with a shotgun in each hand) This game will cause your child to blow holes you could drive a truck through in their classmates! ANAL! (displays picture of child dragging another child by cute pigtails) This game will cause your child to anally rape their younger sister on a daily basis! SENATOR! (displays picture of legislation) This game will cause your child to run for office in the legislative branch! See, warnings like that will really speak to the actual fears parents have about video games, and then they'll pay more attention.
Slices, dices, eats your lunch.
iF U GiB YeR KiDZ OnLiNE XBoX/PeeS2
DoNT G!B TH3M A H3DS3T.
3SP3C!4LLY !F H3 IZ A BOI AND SOUND LIKE A GRRL AKA HADNT DROP HIZ NUTS YET.
lameness filter thwarted.
The research showed that parents were more concerned about children spending too many hours playing games, rather than about what type of title they were playing.
Never mind the fact that some video games can be educational and good for you. Gentle Brain Exercises for the Nintendo DS comes to mind. Additionally some studies have shown video gaming can improve hand-eye coordination.
The older generation needs to realize that first of all, video games are no longer just for kids. The kids that were playing them back in the 80's have now grown up and have children of their own, but many of them are still playing video games. This means that there just might be games out there tailored for this more mature audiance.
And to a certain degree, sticking an 18-rating on a game made that title more desirable. "We called it Magic 18," said Mr Freund. "The 18+ label was seen as promoting the content, promising adult content rather then saying 'my parents will stop me playing this.'"
As has been shown with just about anything you put an age limit on (drinking, smoking, pornography), younger children will find this content more desirable simply for the fact that they're not allowed to have it. This might make them curious as to what about it makes the content not for them. In other cases the children will want to use the product to feel rebelious or more mature. Regardless of whether this idea of thinking is stupid or not doesn't stop it from happening.
You'd think that being young themselves at some point, the older generation would understand this phenomena and figure out a way to stop it, but obviously not. You could say that regulartory boards are designed for this, but they've failed miserably as far as I'm concerned. So rather than take direct action, people for the most part seem more interested in abdicating their parental responsiblity to government legislation.
Of course the people who need to understand this most are the people who don't read slashdot. The tech savvy crowd here is generally well aware of modern video games and the content they can contain, both good and bad.
Ironically, most people knew that games had age ratings, the study by the Swiss research firm Modulum showed.
Doh! So they actually do know that games can contain really bad content.
However, parents were still letting their children play 18-rated games.
Double Doh!
To quote the parent, "Most parents are too divorced from nearly all aspects of their children's lives." According to the article it would seem that more people than expected know about what their kids are playing, but just don't give a shit about it. So when society goes to hell because the children of today, just remember it's your fault for doing a shitty job of raising them and have no one else to blame but yourselves.
Too many parents today want an easy out. They don't want to have to monitor their kids. They want someone else to tell them what is appropriate or not.
I think some parents are more interested in the possibility of being able to file a class action suit against someone after the fact, than thinking for themselves before the fact.
"My kid is better then other kids, he can tell right from wrong, legal from illegal, fantasy from reality, and will never do anything to harm someone" is what probably 90% of parents think. and the other 10% (at least from what I've seen) mostly probably follow them more closely because of much younger siblings. I had a friend in HS that couldn't play violent games because his younger brother would get into them. I'm guessing that as games get more realistic with PS3 and beyond, parents may get the idea, or game violence will no longer strive to be realistic....
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Maybe it's because the games they played, all the coin-ops etc, were innocent. They may hear a games rated M for Mature, but it might not register that yes, their son (because of course girls dont play video games) is going to be killing hookers, stealing cars, killing police and having pixellated sex.
I'm not saying that kids shouldn't be allowed to play those games or anything (personally I think its harmless, if a kid is going to grow up to kill hookers, then if its not video games influencing him, its movies. or tv. or books. All else failing, the voices in his head) but maybe this is why parents don't care?
my uncle and aunty let their five and seven year olds borrow gta:sa from someone and play it because they don't game, and to them gaming is all pacman and space invaders harmless. they did get banned from playing it though when they picked up the language quickly, like when angry at their parents for something, probably not having another mars bar or whatever, and onw of them remarked to his do "you're just a bitch"
I am a parent and a gamer. Even I can't keep up with the blizzard of titles and venues and I am not without clue. I can't keep tabs on every entertainment industry outlet, vet their rating boards, watch their films, read their books and play their games and decide what's appropriate and what's not. I am working for a living as well as raising a family.
I don't have time to vet the standards of the standards boards and I don't trust them; I disagree with them most of the time. For these reasons, the default answer in my family is *no*. No TV, no computer, no games. That only works because the children are not yet school age.
I must emphasize that the majority of marketing is directed at kids and the young adults kids envy because they are the ones simple enough to imagine that you can buy a lifestyle, sex-appeal, entertainment, et. al. Until the entertainment and marketing industries stop targeting my kids they will not be above legislative oversight. I don't trust Congress or the FCC to raise my kids any more than I trust Madison Av or Hollywood.
And no, Slashdot Kids, you can't turn off the feed. Its incessant and ubiquitous. Billboards, newspapers, magazines, kiosks: every available surface spattered with promos for generalized and depersonalized SEX and VIOLENCE. I wouldn't let my kids watch the ads for GTA, let alone play the game.
illegitimii non ingravare
...but not for long I'm sure. Marketing/sales people are the devil anyway.
If fucking people are the problem, perhaps the solution is to stop people from fucking >.>
Parents ignore articles where parents are accused of being ignorant. Details at 11.
Really, when's the last time a parent outright admitted they don't pay attention to what their children watch, listen to, play, etc.
A few weeks ago i went to play with my 15yo cousins (I'm 30). We had a bit of fun playing games like Prince of Persia, Siren (we dropped that not because of the rating, but because the game simply sucked), and some Silent Hill.
But later we found a game from grandpa called mastermind. We followed the instructions and had fun for about 3 straight hours.
It was then when I realized that game companies only put sex and gore in videogames because "they sell". And there were we, playing a game so simple that could be played with pen and paper - and yet so addictive that we could stay overnight playing it.
Maybe it's time for companies to start producing more "family games".
My 2 cents.
A lot of people still consider videogames to be an activity for kids, so the assumption is pretty much anyt game you buy is going to be okay for, say, a sixth grader.
For most parents today, say someone who grew up during the 80s, "graphic videogame violence" means something like Chun Li kicking a guy in the head, or someone getting decapitated in Mortal Kombat. Nothing kids today can't handle, in other words.
Now consider Grand Theft Auto, which some people find distressing not just for the violence it contains, but for the context in which the violence takes place, that is, the murder of unarmed men and women, law enforcement personnel, and members of the armed forces, with weapons ranging from guns to flamethrowers to chainsaws.
Keep in mind that someone reading an ad for GTA, scrutinizing the box, or even persuing the official strategy guide (which, amusingly enough tends to employ euphemisms, saying "take out the guards" instead of "kill the guards", for example) will not really get a feel for just how graphic and nihilistic the game can get.
Yes, in a perfect world, parents would be fully informed about everything littly Timmy or Sally watches, reads, eats, goes on a date with, thinks, smells, wears, feels, or rubs up against, but at the same time, those who make and distribute content have an obligation not to obfuscate the nature of their products. In the case of "Hot Coffee", to cite the most notorious example, this obligation was not lived up to, and the result was a backlash.
One hopes that the result of the Hot Coffee fiasco will be a twofold improvement of the current situation: first, parents should pay more attention to videogame ratings, and should follow up on suspect titles to see exactly what they are about. Second, videogame companies, and the game media, need to be more up front about exactly what goes on in their more "extreme" releases. Communication builds trust, and trust enables free minds and free markets. The alternative is a paternalistic series of legal regulations like those in Germany or Japan (where GTA: Vice City was at one point banned outright), which would do no one except bureaucrats any good.
Certain stores restrict games be age. I remember I got carded for buying Diablo II way back in the day.
I'm not sure whether or not a law restricting games by rating would be successful or not though. It's fairly obvious that parents don't give two shits about the game their kids are playing, in fact most parents are probably buying their kids games any way. Even with a law it'd be business as usual with video game stores.
"Excellence in Mediocrity"
I work at a well know electronics store that sells quite a few games, (pc, ps2, xbox, psp, gba, gc). And parents almost always ignore the ratings when buying a game for their childern. Consider the game "Conker". Parents buy this game like "crazy" for their little "boys". But its most definately a mature game. So tell me again why exactly did parents fight to have these rating?
What is so difficult about monitoring what your kids do? I have 3 boys. I know what they watch, I know what they play, and I know where they go. Sure, they get mad when I tell them they can't play PS2 all day, or they can't watch this or that tv show. But in the end, they listen.
Ratings are meant to be a guideline. Not necessarily a rule set in stone. My 11 year old has seen some R rated movies, with my approval. In fact, we're planning on watching 'Saving Private Ryan' in the near future. Why? Couple reasons.. He's pretty grounded in reality, so I'm not concerned with him getting a gun and going on a killing spree. He's studying history, and I think it's a really good historical movie.
I've let him watch other R rated movies too. And then there are PG and PG-13 movies that he's not allowed to see. The same goes for my other 2 boys.
It's a parents job to know their child, and to know what their child is ready for. Some children mature faster. Some mature slower. I feel completely comfortable with every decision I've made thus far and I'm extremely proud of how my children are turning out.
There have been times when I've made the "wrong" decision. I've let them do play games, or watch a TV show that they might not have been ready for. I learned from the experience and made sure they weren't exposed to that stuff anymore. After they matured a little more, I relaxed the restrictions a little.
It's up to the parents to deal with their children the right way. How about instead of all this legislation and other governmental crap, we set up some education for parents. How about some support groups? Maybe some free parenting classes? Maybe even an incentive for employers to allow their employees to go to these classes.
Dammit, I like my rights. I don't need the government telling me that I can't let my kid do this or that when I know perfectly well that my child is mature enough to handle it. Maybe the government should follow their own rules and when they're perfect, I'll think about it..
XenoPhage
Technological Musings
HTH
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Duh! I didn't need a report to tell me that.
This goes to show what I've maintained all along. Most people don't care about ratings and don't think exposing kids to "evil" content is damaging.
The ones pushing for ratings on games and regulating T.V. broadcasts etc. are a tiny minority who aren't content to parent their own kids and want to parent everyone else, kids and adults alike.
How many parents even care about their kids these days? I mean really care? Yeah, they'll buy them clothes and drive them to soccer practice and whatnot, but they dont know shit about their kids' lives.
Hell, people dont even descipline their kids anymore. When I was a kid, my parents signed a waver to allow teachers to spank me in school when I was being a shit. When I was being a shit at home, I got spanked, too. Good luck doing either today, you'll have a damn kid sueing his parents or the neighbors calling the police.
It doesnt "take a village", it takes parents doing their job to raise a kid. If parents give two shits about their kids, they will place restrictions on what they can do, and monitor their compliance. "Oh, Johnny will just play GTA at Billy's house." Well crap, call Billy's mom or dad and tell them that you dont allow your child to play that stuff and that if they see it they need to send Johnny home and give me a ring on the phone.
My point: Parents have been neutered over the years and the will to care has been beaten out of those who actually cared in the first place. Parents, do your job despite that.
It's easier to be ignorant.
No one can blame you for being ignorant. (Yes they can, but the blamed can still 'feel' innocent.) And when something bad happens, you're a 'victim' which is also easier.
The more people play ignorant as a matter of habit, the longer I will remain employed as "the IT guy" on the floor of any corporate office. I think we all know how brain-dead some of the things "SysAdmins" do can be. Some of the problems we solve repeatedly are even moreso much of the time. It's my job NOT to play ignorant. I refuse to accept that the average person is as brain-dead as they appear to be... it's just not possible. I have to believe they are simply pretending to be ignorant so that they can get people to do things for them so they don't have to. As a husband, I know that trick pretty well... (But I had to make too many shirts and underwear pink to convince her)
I'm a father and, like many of you, a child of the original video game revolution. I played the arcade version of Galaga just yesterday, in fact (a coin operated one, not the MAME version I have on my computer).
Anyway, I have a boy (9) and a girl (5). The boy is the main video game player and game selector, and he knows that games have to be rated E (everyone) in order for him to play it. There are exceptions to this, but they are on a case-by-case basis and they are extremely rare. He might have been allowed to play a T (teen) game once or twice.
Of course, I'm the exception. I'm one of those fathers who pays attention to what his children are doing and I don't use video games as a babysitter. OK, in the spirit of full disclosure, maybe I do just a little bit, as I know that the kids will be entertained while playing games and watching TV. But I'm never far away and I always know what they're watching and playing. Heck, I've turned into such a prude that I'm considering banning Nickelodeon and the Disney channel (the latter having turned into nothing but an advertising vehicle for Disney properties).
My point is that it's no surprise that parents don't pay attention to ratings, since so many of them don't even pay attention to their children. The decline of the quality of the family is THE biggest issue that we face as a nation and it's very often the answer to other national issues that we face.
RP
This is exactly what struck me after I read article upon article from 'outraged parents' and others regarding the Hot Coffee mod. Each article had detailed accounts of parents speaking out against 'this type of activity in a game' etc. The most glaring omission from every article was the fact that their kids, ranging in age from 8 to 15, were playing a game RATED for ADULTS that the parents bought for them!
What it comes down to is that these parents are fucking morons. You can't be taken seriously if you buy your kids 2 tickets to an R-rated movie and hear them saying shit and fuck for 2 hours afterwards, mimicking the movie, then complain about the movie itself. YOU bought the tickets. YOU saw the rating. It was YOUR decision to expose your children to that type of media. Don't blame anyone but yourself!
If every parent got a clue and spent the 5 seconds required to read the gigantic MA or Adult label on these games/products, we wouldn't have a problem, would we? The companies can only do so much to protect you from yourself. I can read about my Playstation2, where in the Sony manual it explicitly says, don't drop this in the bathtub with you if it's plugged in. If I choose to ignore the warning and bathe with a powered PS2 and get fried, do I still have the right to whine and complain?
No.
Am I the only one to notice that nobody can spell definitely?
An "Adults Only" title is about as racy as Day Time TV, or most anything on cable after 7 PM, I'd say they are about right with ignoring the ratings. Ratings are for politicians to waste our money creating laws, enforcements and punishments and to get elected by creating media (not public) outcry.
www.jackasscritics.com
In the UK: age of consent is 16, games are rated up to 18. Something's wrong there.
Dumb parents, sure. But that's no reason to just give up. Once a parent, always a parent. Parents should not be controlling. They should be guiding, teaching, influencing, and some times they need to reprimand. They should never give up.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Even I fell for this, to an extent, but not with video games.
I'm 24, with no kids, but I'd always considered "comic books" to be kids' stuff. This year I finally opened my mind and checked out some of the classic graphic novels like V for Vendetta. No way is that stuff at a kid's level; I think most kids would completely miss at least 50% of what Moore was saying there, and the violence level was disturbingly high in that, as well as, say, something like The Watchmen or Hellblazer. Again, not something I'd imagine most parents would want their kids to be steeped in. GTA sounds like it's at about that level.
With that said, I also think most parents are complete morons when it comes to deciding what their kids should/shouldn't be allowed to do, and also morons for blaming anyone but themselves if they aren't keeping track of their kids and have no idea what they're up to.
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
But they'll end up drinking nyquil and driving their monster SUV into a crowd of people and be just fine themselves.
I swear there's just something in the brains of certain people that kicks out in these scenarios. You'll get the skier who goes out-of-bounds despite all the warning signs, the couple that gets mauled trying to pet a raccoon in the park (despite warning signs) and the parents that buy their kids mature/adult rated games (despite warning labels).
And guess what, the skier will try to sue the skihill, the couple will sue the park, and the parents will sue the game manufacturers. Nothing short of a high-voltage capacitor in the game box will be enough to save parents from their own stupidity... and even sometimes that wouldn't be enough.
None of these stuffy politicians ever played video games. They're simply too old for the golden era of gaming that is the 80's (galaga oh ya baby). People between 20-30 years old grew up on games, and they were mostly what would be considered kiddie games by today's standard. Now that we're adults, we want mature games. The kiddie games are still there for the children, but adults want their games too. The reason this is not an issue until now is becasue there was absolutely no market for an adult oriented game back in the day.
I got nothin'
I'll never forget the time I went to Electronics Boutique to buy Grand Theft Auto, and was carded by the scrawny little retail monkey. "You must be joking," I said. He frowed his pimply, 19-year old face and said, "Hey, this is serious. I need to see your card."
"Whats the point of this article, we all know this"
or
"NO ****!"
I do blame the parents, and I'll tell you why.
They chose to work two jobs, they chose to have kids, and they choose not to supervise them properly. With freedom comes responsibility.
They could work less (and yes do with less money) and supervise their kids.
They could have not had kids.
My wife and I have decided that when we have kids we will have to make certain sacrifices to our personal lives and careers and standard of living to raise them properly. This is one of the tradeoffs of having kids.
I know some other people who think a child is slightly more responsiblity than a puppy and that it shouldn't really impact your life too much.
This is the second Taco post in games today. Only one Zonk post in games today.
Could it be true???
GTA III is where my boys learned to drive, God rest them!
It's a little bit sad how it seems the job of determining if a parent is a 'Bad Parent' is left to their children. Any kid who hasn't got every thing they have ever wanted is going to claim their parents are the worst parents ever. I think parents need to grow up as a whole and realize that they are spoiling their children rotten and ruining the future by doing so. What is going to happen when these kids become old enough to vote? Or they get jobs? Will their boss give them less work because they dont feel like working that hard? Or a different job because they want it? The way things are going maybe that will be the case for them...'No Child Left Behind', right?
Most parents have faith in their kids' ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality. It's just that the barrier starts to decay when the kid is later elected to public office.
Why isn't there a sanity test required to hold public office?
Grand Theft Auto, Leisure Suit Larry, Playboy Mansion. These sort of titles. How can a reasonable person think they are for children?
If it wasn't the complete eradication they were after, wouldn't they be trying to educate parents, instead of attacking the companies and pushing for legislation to get the games out of stores?
This is just like the groups lobbying for stricter controls on alcohol with the ultimate goal of prohibition.
I guess freedom is just a buzzword in the U.S. these days.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
First, I have a 14 yo son. And, to be frank, I do the parenting in regards to games permitted.
I have no probs with The Sims, in fact I play Sims: The Urbz with Ian and his half-sister when she is at our place (she's 11).
I found Fable on the xBox a bit much at times, pushing the envelope of what I would get.
I loved Lego Star Wars and it doesn't really matter what age rating you give it.
Some of the other games he plays at friends houses are a bit much - Blood Rayne, any of the GTA - although if they ever release GTA: Seattle I'll buy it, a lot of things supposedly for teens are way too violent.
I'm not so worried about a lot of the "sex" - Americans are way too uptight, if you ask me, and need to stop mixing that with violence.
So, it doesn't matter what they rate it - some stuff is games that nutso parents say is BAD - that I think is GOOD - other stuff that they say is GOOD (Nascar racing?) will never darken my door.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
From seeing different viewpoints of video game rating enforcement, I have categorized parents to video games into 4 categories:
1.The child is playing games beyond his/her rating, the parents take them away.
2.The child is playing games beyond his/her rating, the parents disapprove but do nothing forceful. (A.K.A. my parents)
3.The child is playing games beyond his/her rating, parents don't care.
4.The child is playing games beyond his/her rating, because the parents willingly bought them.
- Comic books --> juvinile deliquency --> comic book ratings board (50's)
- Rock 'n' Roll --> sass-mouth-->music ratings (80's)
- Video games --> poor deportment --> ESRB (90's)
Just wait until parents discover tentacle-monster-rape anime!You just said they're not even School Age yet, unless you think a 3yr old could even play GTA, let alone deal with the themes.
It's a pretty hollow statement on your part.
The real problem here isn't the people. It's the system. When you have a court system that routinely allow HUGE multi-million dollar judgments on frivolous lawsuits, you end up encouringing merit-less lawsuits. This results companies slapping on these labels etc etc.
Next time someone's kid goes and shoots up a bunch of people, and the parents sue the makers of {name your video game}, the courts should kick the parents to the curb and fine their asses.
First, 99.9999% of kids that play them don't go out committing crimes, so why should everybody suffer because of a couple of Darwinian rejects? This is how you want society to be shaped? By a couple of bad apples?
Second, why is it the government's job to babysit your kids? The government is treading on waters it should not have the power to tread on. Big government equals bad government. Communism is just around the corner...
eTrade SUCKS
I think the only people that really look at the ESRB are the game shop employee's...They love the power trip
As a parent and long time gamer myself, I don't understand the big ado surrounding the GTA:SA title. I have been a huge fan of the series since the first GTA, nothing wrong with a little mindless violence. It is proven a great stress reliever and IMHO has kept more people alive than it has killed, the same goes for the shootem up FPS. Rather than go ballistic at your local X-mart you can go virtual and feed your bloodlust without reprecusions.
I agree wholly with another posters comment about how the mindless violence and cop killing are perfectly fine, yet show pixelated sex scenes and suddenly you have a game fit to be witch hunted and destined to be absolutely sought after by every gamer who is worth their weight in games.
Someone once said "any press is good press". GTA:SA has now been elevated from a run of the mill release to a gotta have title. I wonder how many copies they have sold since this story first went public?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I believe this is a truly screwed up story and a mark on this story-book life of mine (yeah right). There's nothing new under the sun.
It was only yesterday my mom bought me Leisure Suit Larry 3 at the mall. I believe I was fourteen at the time. I can remember her silence during the car ride home as I opened the box and read some of the contents out loud. As an adult now who can recall what those contents were, I realize I was still ignorant of adult things then, and she was probably embarassed.
Now concerning the purchase, it didn't take much convincing from me, just a "come on, what's the big deal". The guy at the counter told her it had adult content and asked if she was sure, yet she bought it for me anyways. Honestly, I don't think she is/was a wise parent and is/was unprepared to deal with making moral decisions. For example, she asked me to tell my sister, who is 16, to not wear certain kinds of clothes. Well congratulations, mom, you've lost another one. You had the last five years to be honest with child number three.
I never had a mature and honest sex talk with my parents; I think they were afraid to deal with it, and it's something I regret about my early teenage years but it's their fault for not speaking up and something that cannot be changed. And so I entered adulthood confused, as I'm sure a lot of people have, and have probably made mistakes as a result of this.
Casting what is and is not moral aside, as just general parenting and looking out for the best interest of your children, we are doomed if parents are going to choose to be ignorant of the world their children live in. Children will gather guidance and form a worldview not representative of their parents' if the parents choose not to participate. And then the parents have no excuse and only regret, and another generation of children who will have to learn from mistakes instead of from parental wisdom. As it always has been, I'm certain.
It's not Leisure Suit Larry or GTA, or stupid sex and violence entertainment specifically that's to blame. It is the unintended consequences of birthing kids, putting up a facade of what one is supposed to emulate instead of establishing solid foundation, bricks and mortar of a person.
I think I'm done now. This was probably the wrong place to post, but it helped me some, and I hope it would be wisdom to those reading. Cheers.
This is right up there in the "shocking news" department with: "Microsoft OS contains exploitable security flaws" Thank's for the update Cap't Obvious.
The problem I have with ratings is that they are not consistant. How is it that a game like Halo is M with a bit of blood and language, and games like Hitman: Contracts are also M! The game a fetish party in it. I always go by the content, not by the rating.
Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
Except you're dead wrong. There IS such a law. See:
n ois.adult.games.ap/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/fun.games/07/27/illi
Its Constitutionality may be called into question, but the existence of such a law really can't.
... forwarded this artical to Jack Thompson yet?
Slashdot sigs contain more useful information than the articals
I bought Shrek 2 for my girls, thinking it would be a fun kids game. Instead I found a game with the sole premise of bashing humans over the head to make progress. It was rated E for everyone. I'm sorry but my 5 and 6 year old girls don't need to learn that bashing humans over the head is a fun thing to do. I have no problem with the game itself. It's the rating that should clearly point out that "Killing Humans" is a part of the game. I wouldn't have wasted money on the stupid thing then. But I guess that's the trick. It's not about ratings, it's about money.
http://chicagodave.wordpress.com
I think a parent needs to make a conscious decision into what their children will and will not be exposed too. The more restictive they are, then the more dilligent they have to be in order to enforce what they have decided. And the battle is hard. Video games is just the tip of the ice burg. Parents have to monitor TV watching, what music they are listening too, who they are hanging out with, what they are reading, who they associate with in general, where specifically they are at and what they can be exposed to. That is a lot of work. These days I think Parents generally don't consciously decide where they will make there stand and in doing so they decide implicitly that they will be leniant towards everything. Sad, but I think increasing parents are viewing kids more and more as low maintenance people that they have to take care of.
we wouldn't need ratings systems! Once again, I am posting as the parent of two grown sons, and yes, when they were young I made sure I knew what they were playing/listening to/watching/surfing. IT'S MY JOB!!! I am neither too stressed out, ignorant, nor am I divorced from my children in any way. Unfortunately, I am the exception and not the rule.
Interestingly, in the UK this game would probably have been rated 18 anyway. So the revelation that there was a sexy mini-game (only available via a mod, FFS) caused not a ripple over here. In fact it was only the furore over it in the US that brought it to our attention. The notion that there is a huge moral and sexual difference between 17- and 18-year-olds which needs to be protected was placed into sharp relief. We really can't see the problem. Sex or violence, 18 is the arbitrary limit. As it is, we already have a more dangerous problem, in that parents take no notice of the ratings anyway. What has happened to parental responsibility today? Does our media offer too much unsuitable content to control?
If they'd put "Rated PG", or "Rated XXX" right on the box in large print more parents would quickly and clearly understand the nature of the content of the game.
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
Has the concept of parental controls been discussed? Placing password-protected limits on the PlayStation, XBox, etc?
--I smoked my sig.
I'd wager that every hormone-fuelled teenager ever to own a car has, at some point or another, felt a strong urge to break the speed limit, smash into that car that is refusing to let him/her overtake or otherwise drive in a horrendously dangerous fashion. When my friends and I get those urges, we fire up Flat Out and take our frustrations out on innocent computer-generated imitation cars. Works wonders - it defuses the tension completely. As an added bonus, the messy pileups help bring home the message that we shouldn't try this in a real car.
In the same way, Quake II is still helping me resist the urge to strangle my kid sister, with the added bonus that I'm less likely to deliberately start an interstellar war.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
As a dad of a 7-years old, I am appauled that anyone could even think that a rating such as ESRB would prevail compared to one's judgement.
Said differently, who is that ESRB who is deciding for me what is good for my kid?
Moreover, few understand that such ratings bear a very heavy cultural background. What is good for a kid from Washington DC may not be good for a kid from Paris.
Lobby groups from USA should stop thinking they are the elite and that everyone should follow.
Also, in a time of parental dismissal and too much television, there are enough whistleblowers and idiots who think a hidden sex scene in a video game that requires a hack to get at is an outrage and the game should be immolated to the altar of good thinking.
Last but not least, I see only benefits in kids playing video games instead of watching television. Worse come to worse, telly is much worse than any video game. One simple reason being you cannot (really) control what's going on television, where if your kid bought a game you don't want him/her to play because your own "rating" says "No!", it's easy to hide a CD. Try hiding a television program when kid's at home and you are working.
I can make my own mind regarding my kid, thank you. I NEVER follow ratings. EVER! And I can tell you, at 11 years old she'll be playing an elf in World of Warcraft and I'll show her how to properly shoot cops in GTA.
This is probably just wishful thinking, but maybe people are realizing that THEY'RE JUST FUCKING VIDEO GAMES.
.. really doesn't fucking matter if they're smart enough to know what's right/wrong.
...but, the majority of people are sheep, so I kinda doubt that they're wisening up.
You failed as a parent if your kid is stupid enough to repeat what they see on TV. That's really all this boils down to. Rated R, M,
A 12 year old can play GTA no problem... and I'm 100% serious. You know why? Because the shit that goes on at school, the things their friends pressure them into, etc... all have much more of a profound impact on who they will be than them playing a video game.
Either way, it's still good. I was never a fan of the rating systems. It takes responsibility away from proper parenting.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
My son still complains I would not let him play the GTA series or Doom 3.
I do check the content on anything that goes in his PS2 or on the computer
I just hooked up an old C-64 and broke out about 500 old floppies and let my 2 youngest at them. That solves a lot of the problems with the 2 smaller ones but my teenager was not impressed though I did catch him playing Ultima III on it so maybe there is hope.
I have a fever baby and the only cure is more cowbell!
Those are all fine and good ideas for the ESRB to consider, but any shift in the rating system that lowers some ratings faces a major hurdle. Specifically, that would be my senator Hillary Clinton (yes, I'm from NY). If politicians think the game rating system is weak, then they will pass [unconstitutional] laws in order to "protect children." The ESRB was created by the video game industry to pre-empt censoring politicians, not because of mass consumer demand for ratings.
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
The problem of GTA going adults only was their own fault by first denying that the "unintentional" inclusion of clothed sex was not of their doing.
Back in the day most households would survive on one income, which meant that one parent would be at home much more often, and be able to take a more active role in their children's loves.
Now most households require two incomes, so parents have less time to devote to their children
This is only part of the reason this is happening
Just another crappy blog
This is news? When have parents checked about what they buy when it comes from coputer games. They just fork out the cash for that xbox game to little Timmy and thats the last of that.
Can someone please mod the article -1 redundant?
Maybe parents are not lazy... maybe a normal person doesn't find low-poly people having PG sex, and cartoon style violence, to not really be that bad.
I see no reason why a normal 12 year old shouldn't be allowed to play GTA. I don't understand what is the big deal. Its make-believe. Lighten up people.
who said, "I drank what?"
--Chris Knight (Val Kilmer), Real Genius
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"Heh heh heh. It's funny 'cause I don't know them."
You must think in Russian.
American society must learn to differentiate between 'wants' and 'needs' soon or it's all going to get ugly.
Blar.
they bring once again the example of the 14 year old that would have been inspired by manhunt to kill another kid...
:)
luckily, that case shows exactly what's really going on.
as expected when something like this gets out, the press jumps on it like a pack of hungry beasts and immediatly big debates and headlines of how dangerous videogames are, organisations of "worried parents" forcing to ban certain games from shops etc...
what was really going on: the manhunt game was found in the house of the VICTIM, not the killer, they didn't know eachother, so there was no possible link between the killer and manhunt, the police had put that in the report, the press had "chosen" to ignore that little fact....
why have videogames become the new platform of free speech where everybody has to make their case and state their vision? anyone know a new technology that's about to come that will take all the blame for children's mischief, bad results in school etc... it used to be television, now pc, untill the next mainstream method of entertainment arrives
See the difference between them and us? They place the blame on the parents who don't give a fuck and buy their kids whatever violent game they want, because they are to damn lazy to read a goddamned label that tells them that the game isn't for their child, while we Americans blame the ESRB and videogame companies, because we don't fucking want to be labelled a bad parent and we want to sue to get some fucking money.
You see, a big cultural difference in America than in the UK (and most other places in the world for that matter) is that we, as Americans, like to sue. We sue over everything. We sue to make money. We sue to blame someone else for our own poor eating decisions(Google McFatties.) We even sue to make money off of our dead children. Like the parents that sue videogam companies after their children have been shot. In my honest oppinion, by doing that, you're fucking your child's corpse for money.
Blame the killers and the apathetic fucks who raised them, not video games.
They really aren't. The ESRB is a voluntary ratings system. For that matter, so is the MPAA's G/PG/PG-13/R/NC-17 system. If a film maker doesn't like that his film got an NC-17 rating, he can just choose to release it with NO rating. But many theater chains will snub his film to avoid unwanted criticism.
Likewise, video game ratings are a similar situation. Nothing says Rockstar has to rate GTA. They can release it unrated if they want. But many game chains will refuse to stock it then.
As for me? I think they're helpful. I have a 10-year old stepson, and I'm a liberal proponent of free speech. But, does that mean I want my stepson watching porn or playing cop-killer video games at his age? No. While media may not have a MAJOR impact on his decisions, I know that it does have SOME impact. I DON'T want him desensitized to violence. I DON'T want him thinking unprotected sex is as okay as kissing. If he chooses to have sex before he's married (even if when in high school,) I just want to make sure he understands what he's doing, and takes precautions.
Oh, and I'm not an 'outlaw all guns' liberal, either. I have taken my stepson shooting multiple times. In controlled ranges, with proper safety procedures. He hasn't yet shot a firearm, just BB and air guns. I want to make sure he fully understands that a gun can kill instantly, and that it's not a toy, before he holds one. That means I don't want him watching movies or playing video games that portray 'realistic' violence in a glorifying way. I've let him watch 'Saving Private Ryan', and 'Schindler's List', but I don't even like him watching 'Speed'.
As such, I use game ratings as a guide. If it's rated 'T', I look to see if the offending material is 'realistic'. If so, I won't buy it. If it's cartooney (Star Wars,) then probably. If it's M, not a chance. I recently had an acquaintance who also has a 10 year old son remark that now that the bad material was removed from GTA, they'd buy it for their 8 year old son! I made sure to let her know that the only bad material that was removed was the material that wasn't really officially there anyway. It's still just as violent as it was before.
(I always wondered why 'liberals' were anti-gun and pro-sex, while 'conservatives' are anti-sex, but pro-gun... Wouldn't you rather have your kid making more kids than killing other kids?)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
let's not forget that the UK is a little more mature when it comes to mature content, activites etc. UK parents don't have a finger up their butts like American legislators and lobbyists.
As a father of two boys, 8 and 6, I always screen whatever movie or show or game they're going to watch/play. This is because, in my experience, the ratings are usually too lenient! For example, a recent Justice League Unlimited story arc (awesome show, btw) had stuff that went above and beyond typical "cartoon violence": Extended torture scenes of someone bound to a table; mutation of a human while he screams in agony; explicit death declarations ("I'm going to kill you", "watch you die", etc.) So what was the rating on this show? Y7! And this wasn't a mistake; they rated the entire series Y7. Would you want your 7-yr-old to watch someone getting tortured while he screams in pain and begs for mercy? What moron on a ratings board thought that torture was an acceptable concept for 7-yr-olds to experience?!
:-) And just to be sure, I always watch a new film or play a new game with them the first time.
:-)
I should also point out that some ratings are too harsh. For example, The Dark Crystal and Tron are PG movies but I let my 8 and 6 yr old watch them because, hey, they're awesome movies
I am not a religious conservative nut -- I just don't want my kids to be psychologically damaged in their early years because I exposed them to inappropriate material for children. Believe me, when they turn 14 or 15, I'm very much looking forward to introducing them to some of my favorite movies, like Aliens or Terminator 2
Hate to be blunt, but every one of you that says that "Video games arn't just for kids anymore" is an idiot. Video games have NEVER been just for kids. Do you think that Custer's Revenge was designed for kids? It was way worse than anything in GTA:SA.
And for those of you that whine about parents not looking at the Rating...Have you thought that maybe a huge number of them understand that ratings bodies are designed for the lowest common denominator. Being 36, and having the 20/20 hindsight of over 20 years, I can say with confidence that by somewhere between 10 and 13 there was absolutly no content that I was not able to deal with.
It is popular today to retard our children. Historically 13 was a full adult. These "Children" built nations, ruled nations, fought wars, married, had children, ran farms and businesses. Maybe your genetic line has degraded into mush in the last 100 years, but mine has not.
And before anyone spouts off about how 'we live in more complicated times', I will call BS on that. We live in the safest, easiest, most gentle time in history. Not once have I ever had to fear that the hords were coming to rape our women and steal our crops because the weather was good. I've never had worry that me and my family were going to die because we had a bad season for our crops. (except during a brief period during a bathroom remodel) I have always had indoor plumbing, and all I had to do to get rid of my shit was to pull a little handle. The fact is, even if you have no job, and are homeless, SOMEONE will feed you. I know this is the case here in the US, and I have good reason to believe that it applies to any country that has wide distribution of video game systems.
Calling parents that don't follow the ratings 'bad' is just plain hypocritical. If anything that is in any game currently availible is going to damage your child, it is already too late, and you have already failed as a parent.
Yesterday I saw a child in our news channel not greater than 5, crying on his father grave.
His father caugh fire in middle of city fighting between US Soldiers and resistance fighters.
20 years after when that child old enough, he wants his justice...
Lets hope your childs defence themselves enough...
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
I know plenty of parents that are the same way. I never once received a sex, drugs, alcohol, etc, etc 'talk'. Had I not grown up to be semi-intelligent, I'd probably have ended up a meth head or with hepatits after baging the local Debra the Deep.
It makes a world of difference when your parents talk about it. Its the same thing as asking your supervisor about something that could potentially get you killed at work and they just shrug and move on. It leaves you with a feeling of doubt, an unsteady sinking feeling. Even if they aren't asking, you know they question.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Most kids play under age games, drink under age, have sex under age, smoke under age and do pretty much whatever they can get away with under age. We all did it and most of us turned out ok, some of us didn't but it was hardly down to any of those things. The simple fact is, and I really hate to break this to parents: if your child plays GTA and then goes and shoots someone 'because' of it, they have severe mental problems and may never lead a normal life. These mental problems could be anything from brain damage to threats you made to 'shoot those mother fucking neighbours' over the years while in front of your kids, to school bullying.
Children should have basic common sense and decency from an early age, its you're responsibility as a parent to make sure that happens long before 18, 'NC-17' or even 12. They will eventually find all the things you don't want them to find so deal with it.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
"There are various good technical reasons to include clandestine data within a game, such as ... laziness"
Wow.
ratings mean jack shit when no one enforces them. as a kid, my parents (before there were ratings plastered on every tv show*)had always made it clear when there was a show, movie, or whatever with mature content that i was -not- allowed to see. they explained why they didn't want me watching it until i was older. big surprise: i got it.
occassionally (not nearly often enough, though), i'll see an employee at a game store or movie theatre ask a kid how old they are before letting them buy or watch something with mature content. a twelve year old doesn't get to see the R-rated movie. WOW. who would have guessed?
it's not a difficult thing to make an effort with. if the brats are really desperate to blow people's heads off and giggle at pixelated breasts, sure, they'll find a way to do so anyway, but that doesn't mean everyone should just throw their hands in the air and say it's the fault of those who create the media.
*by the way, am i the only one who's sick to DEATH of not only having ratings on everything shown on television now, but having to hear about all of the show's innappropriate content before the show and after EVERY commercial break? why must irresponsible parents be so lawsuit-happy that i have to constantly hear about "harsh language" when i'm watching tv at friggin' 3am? =___=;
~it's the ultimate dinner show~
Damn skippy! Down with reading. I say that on the front of the box, we need graphic and detailed images of exactly what kind of nudity, violence, and animal molestation we can expect from a video game!
(No, really. Maybe if you put a picture of a faceless guy in a leather jacket splitting a prostitute's skull with a golf club on the front of a GTA box, parents will finally realize that the game _contains violence._)
(Have cake) /\ (Eat cake) == false
Have not seen Flat Out, but since it just involves, blood, gore, killing, crashing cars and other things that are *illegal* (not to mention immoral) in the real world -- this seems to be ok to the hysterical media, government, and most parents (probably because of brainwashing by the former two).
GTA has been this way the entire time, and no one gave a lick. But, once someone shows sex (which last time I checked, was legal, as long as one is not to young, and the other too old) STOP EVERYTHING, we can't ever let kids know about sex, so we just tell kids nothing, until their bodies figure it out. Problem is, this way, rarely do they get the saftey lesson this way (protection, etc.) So we end up with teenage pregnancies, most of which occur in families that promote abstinence, or not talk about it at all.
So, killing and mahem: no problem.
Sex: major taboo, needs to be squashed.
What a Country (US in case you didn't figure it out, many European countries have a better take on this subject)
Slashdot needs an obvious tag.
Yeah, they might be unarmed and cowering for mercy, but killing and eating them heals you as much as eating a marine (when you play as an alien). The game encourages you to eat them, which I don't have a problem with since they're potentially just as morally bankrupt as the guards - maybe more so.
If the game had some kind of heads-up display like:
"receptionist - has never experimented on a sentient being, vegetarian..."
"senior technician - responsible for implanting eggs in criminals, tells sexist jokes..."
Then maybe you could make the requisite ethical judgements. But ethics are at least partially subjective - and when you're playing as an alien you should be acting in character!
I quit!
If games were rated the same as movies, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
the reason is that the US media cares about $$$$.
and parents in the US largely suck.
I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
I knifed a bitch for slamming his bmx into my Remmington's trunk while I was trying to pick up a hooker.
I then proceded to eat 4 servings of deep fried chicken.
18+ it is.
Clearly parents shouldn't even be allowed to raise their kids. They might fuck it up. The government is the one that really needs to do it for them.
No, if a parent wants to buy their kid a video game, the parent should be allowed to. Will some parents buy out of stupidity? Sure. On the other hand, I don't need to be told that my sixteen year old boy can't play Alien Vs Predator because uncle same as deemed it too graphic for his fragile little mind until he is a year older.
Government officials are completely stupid and ignorant when it comes to regulating information content. The entire Janet Jackson nonsense proved this rather conclusively. My kid can watch the news that shows real people dying, or he can watch dramatizations of humans being raped and murdered, but the second we see a nipple for half of a second the world ends? Bah, talk about a bunch of completely worthless and incompetent. They already have their fluffy union contracts, guaranteed life time pay, and the complete inability to be fired. They don't need power over information too.
Show me proof that video games are even a tiny fraction as dangerous as cigarettes and that playing them takes 30 years off your life, and you have an argument. Until that day though, the government can stay the bloody fuck out of my life on this issue.
its already been said: until some talking head moron tells the parents theres a problem, there isnt one. you know what that means? THERE ISNT ONE TO BEGIN WITH! is it too much to ask that ppl pull your god damned heads out of there collective anal cavities, and do 5 seconds of independant thought? you can fully put the blame on moms. anything that might 'pervert' there kids into anything other than a soft, weak, effeminized, gutless, emotionally screwed up little man is something they dont like. you would be amazed at how many women i know who are raising there boys to be men they would date. what that means, is easily manipulated, capitulating, boring guys. the same kind of guys they get bored with.
Politician: Yes, we are terribly sorry. We'll make sure that those game developers pay!
It isn't a new situation. A local network recieved a lot of complaints from parents about "South Park" despite rating it "Mature Audiences Only" and initially showing it at 11pm on a Wednesday during the school term. The network is a multicultural one called SBS - affectionately nicknamed due to it's content of European movies and late live sports broadcasts "Sex Before Soccer" - you'd think people would get the hints. Some parents will just ignore ratings on their electronic babysitters and some will get pissed off and self-rightous later about the TV or game content.
I had that happen when seeing American Pie 2 a few years ago. Got ID'd when buying the tickets, got ID's when they ripped the ticketed, and got ID'd by cops at the door. What the fuck?
With an the exception of the cops, I had the same thing happen with Team America (saw it twice opening day...) and Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle (awesome movie, I've watched the dvd over 50 times now).
Oh my God! Parents are actually doing the parenting instead of the government and corporations?!
What is the world coming to?
'A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.'
Music is everybody's possession.
It's only publishers who think that people own it.
Fuck Beta
~John Lenno
are both video game players. We are both concerned with what her 10 year old son plays.
His father, however, is firmly of the "sit down and shut the f*ck up" generation, and doesn't care that his son plays GTA:VC, etc, when his kids are there.
Sure, we let him play Halo (though he wasn' supposed to....), but at least I've played it, and know what it's like.
GTA, True Crime, and those others...well, we do what we can.
I cannot say that when I was 10-13 there was no content I couldn't deal with. I'm not saying I wouldn't let my (fictitious) 13 year old play GTA:SA, but I am saying that there's a big difference between a 13 year old and a mature adult in what they can handle.
I cannot imagine what you talk about when you say 13 was a full adult. I know a 13 year old can do a lot of things, they can hold down a job quite well. But I know how badly most 18 year olds manage their affairs, I can't imagine 13 year olds would do particularly well.
I have to say we do live in more compicated times in many ways. Yes, you're right about how easy and soft things are. But also, there is so much more access to information. A 13 year old could easily see things (pictures of things) that people in the times you speak of would never see in their lifetime.
When you were young even access to regular porn was rare. Stag films still existed and were quite an event to view. Porn theaters did exist, but anyone under age wasn't getting into them. For most kids their Father's Playboy mags was perhaps the raciest thing they would imagine seeing. Now things of that sort are a few keypresses away, even to young people.
And it wasn't just that, there are pictures and films of awful, degrading acts of violence that not easily available before. Remember the titelation when you heard of "Faces of Death"? Perhaps you even saw it in your early teens (when videotape become widespread). That's all available to anyone at any age with ease now.
And Custer's Revenge was worse than GTA:SA? I can't agree. The images in Custer's Revenge were so crude, anyone without a knowledge of what they represent couldn't possibly be affected by them. It's like telling a dirty joke to a 5 year old. They don't have the context, it goes over their head.
Any I do understand you found one older game that wasn't for kids. But it was the very rare exception. And Custer's Revenge was VERY poorly distributed. There were so few copies sold. Really, before the Sony PlayStation, video games were targeted almost solely at kids. Parents bought the games for their children, not for themselves. Sony recognized the market was opening up to making it possible to sell video games to adults, and they changed the marketplace completely.
So I don't agree that just because you're not likely to be eaten by wolves that the world is a simpler, kinder place than it was. It's a lot more complex than that.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Parents are more concerned with whether their children are reading enough, than with whether or not their children are reading books concerning crime and criminality, or just plain rape and violence
Thank god those evil influences are banned, and can no longer effect the innocense of our childrens thoughts!
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
The original comments on the study completely missed, as did all of the comments on the BBC web site and (sad to say) most of those here, the most obvious possibility of the lot: Most parents take reponsibility for raising their kids. The study actually found, if I recall the first report, that most parents knew that their kids were playing "rated" games, but were comfortable that their children were able to handle the content. No evidence was offered that that view was in any way incorrect.
I've raised four children. The decision as to what they could watch/read/play/do has always been mine, based upon my knowledge of my children; I would never have dreamed of handing that decision to a group of strangers based upon some label. I take such information under advisement, stay informed, and make my own decisions. No, I haven't always known exactly what was in the films they've watched and games they've played, but I wasn't ignorant either, because (a) I play games and watch films myself, and (b) my kids had no incentive to hide what they were doing. I suspect I know a lot more about what my kids really did than a lot of parents who think they have their kids controlled - although having been one myself once, I'm not naive enough as to think I know even the half of it. In the process, I got to keep an eye on the direction if not the detail, to gently steer them away from things I felt they they weren't ready to handle, and all in all raise them to have much healthier and rounded attitudes than I would have done by knee-jerk reaction.
Three of my four offspring are now (to the best of my ability to judge) just as mature, healthy and well-balanced adults as anyone; the fourth is well on the way to being so as well. It's funny how many kids grow up to be the same, despite all the wicked, apalling parenting everyone seems to think is going on.
They already have their fluffy union contracts, guaranteed life time pay, and the complete inability to be fired. They don't need power over information too.
This isn't the government that wants to control what you see and hear. Its the goddamed fucking Cristians, pardon my french. The religious busybodies that can't mind their own damn businuess. They whine and bitch to the politicians until they get their way. Blame them.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
The problem is the word GAME itself - these "games" like San Andreas and other such things need to be given a whole new descriptive title rather than being a "game"
:( ..) and that's the start of people realising they aren't just for kids.
Parent's associate the word "game" with something kids "play" and that's the problem - while we do play these games - they are not focused towards kids - also they are so complex, deep, involving and great nowadays like a good book or movie - that I think putting something like Deus Ex, GTA:SA, NOLF etc in the same lump as pac-man is almost a little insulting when you think about it.
You change that name "game" to something else (I don't know what
parents are more concerned about children spending too many hours playing games, rather than about what type of title they were playing.
As they should be, IMO. Sex and violence you can counter with heart-to-heart talks. Computer addiction and tendency towards a sedentary lifestyle are more difficult to combat.Violent games are not the problem, it's the parents who view Playstations and PCs as "babysitters" that are the issue. Balanced kids need balanced input which means they get the time to have fun killing and maiming on a computer screen *and* care and attention from parents who read to them, spend time with them and show them what real life, love and the family are all about.
In one sense, however, these *are* more complex times because there has never been a time when all of us, especially kids, are bombarded with advertising and images designed to convey one message - "buy this product or you're not cool." This creates tremendous peer-pressure amongst kids which leads to many of the problems we have today - bullying, lack of respect for authority, etc.
Get to my age and you can happily close your eyes and ears to this media rubbish but kids need an equal amount of bombarding of parental care & commitment to counteract what messages the corporations send to them through the media.
This is purely a question of balance and kids having parents who care enough about what gets into their heads to give them time, love and advice to counteract what they soak in from the media.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
And therefore have faith in their own children, and believe that will allow them to grow up to be stronger individuals than if they shielded from exposure to any ugly part of the world, even in fictional form?
It could be...
Simply fact. Most parents today are f**king stupid, have zero control of their kids, and couldn't be bothered to actually raise them.
Friend of my wife's has been whacking herself up with fert drugs for years trying to have a kid. It never took, so her and her husband decided to adopt. They went thru all the background checks, spent tons of money, and are now finally gonna adopt. What are they doing now?
Looking at day care to put the kid in as soon as they get it.
WTF??? Why are they even bothering?
I always look at the ratings before buying. I have a 6 year old son, and while I will play the games along with him, I want to know about potentially objectionable content before it pops up on the screen before him. Like many others, I look at the specific reasons why a game was rated instead of just the absolute rating. I will let him play a "T" rated game if the specific reasons for the rating are not objectionable to me.
What, exactly, is the legal difference between accessing content (on a game) that was not meant to be accessible on that platform, and accessing content (in an encrypted DVD) that was not meant to be accessible on that platform?
Doesn't that put 'hot coffee' (which we all know is the REAL media issue with video games at the moment) into the same legal vein as ripped CDs and stripped DRM?
While I don't condone prosecuting modders for violating the DMCA, perhaps a few allegations against Senator Clinton are in order- After all, she claims to have seen the mod.
Seriously, who in their right mind even creates a system with separate ratings for 17 and 18 years of age? Maturity levels at those ages differs vastly between individuals of the same age, so while a game can be unsuitable even for one kid of 18, another 17 year old kid could quite readily handle it. Of course parents lose respect for a rating that is obviously disconnected from reality.
And people, please, kill the "Violent games make violent people" mantra. It simply isn't true!
I just blame Canada.
A part of the problem is that people have been conditioned not to think about the content of video games due to memories. Think about it, back in the early 1980s, video games had very poor graphics. Any adult material was in the form of text when it came to games. Nudity wasn't an issue because what was in the game had very little detail, to the point where adults had nothing to fear if children saw the screen.
Fast forward to the point where VGA was first released, and you might get pictures, but in general, what was available for download or to purchase wasn't any worse than what you might see in print from a magazine rack. It still wasn't a big deal in games because while there might be some adult material, it was still just a still shot on the screen. Violence in these games was still not seen as a problem because the graphics wern't as good and overall you had animated violence, without all the detail you would see in a movie.
So to that point, unless a child was very young or unusually slow to develop mentally, children would not feel that it was THEM pulling the trigger when they shot something in the game.
As video technology advanced, and the detail level of games goes up, so does the level of immersion. You FEEL more and more like you are a part of the action in a game. It becomes less like controlling some hero, and more like YOU are the hero. Running around shooting people, with effects like body parts flying when they are killed and such is more and more realistic. It went from being more like cartoon violence and is now more like real violence. This change has been slow enough where many people just havn't noticed how graphic these games are. In their minds they think that it's not much different than it was 15 years ago.
Back when games like Wolfenstein 3D first came out, you shot the enemy and except for a few red splatters, there wasn't much to it. Now it would be possible to throw a grenade at an enemy and have body parts flying realistically. For younger players or those who arn't mentally stable, this might be seen as training for real life.
Games on the whole arn't released with the idea of hard-core porn or sexual content, and those that are generally get tagged with the adult-only label. Even nudity levels similar to what you would find in many R-rated movies tend to be left out of computer and console games, and it is for that reason that ANY sexual content in games is looked at.
With movies, sexuality has slowly made it's way from being very unusual to being very common. Even a flash of full frontal nudity might make it's way into a PG-13 film these days, but it's taken a long time to get to that point. With games, the "hot coffee" mod would still be unacceptable, but wouldn't raise nearly as many eyebrows if it were a film with a "deleted scene" that showed up on the DVD release.
Game companies have basically followed the example of the film industry, but has only focused on violence when it comes to letting adult content become a non-issue with younger audiences. But it IS conditioning by the entertainment industry, and it will continue. If things continue at the rate they are, in another 20 years, hard-core porn might end up rated R in movies and M in computer and console games.