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.
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.
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.
Parents simply assume all games are designed for children. The folks in the government seem to assume the same thing.
You make a good point. I would wager it's related to that line from Mel Brooks's 1000-year-old man:
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open manhole and die."
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.
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
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.
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
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!
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.
"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.
Desensitized would be if I enjoyed watching real people fly out of car windshields. It's funny when it's fake. That's not desensitized, that's seeing a line between fantasy and fiction.
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
If fucking people are the problem, perhaps the solution is to stop people from fucking >.>
Of course not. But a "shock value" gimmick is so much easier to make than, you know, actual good gameplay.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Probably long enough to know that he had gained a customer for life with his honesty.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
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
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
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!
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.
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?
1) When I was a kid I could get to watch X rated movies if I wanted.
2) I don't believe _most_ kids are affected by sex or violence in films and games any more than they are by violence in cartoons. I have watched loads of kids grow up, not just my own: some are fragile and need protecting, but not many. Anyway, TV news is pretty horrific - blown up people and the like.
3) The concept of censorship lacks credibility in the UK. For years, the person in charge of the British Board of Film Censors was Legally registered blind In the 1950's there was a famous obscenity trial "Lady Chatterly's Lover" where the prosecution said "would you let your wife or servants read this book" - the court fell over laughing, and the trial was abandoned. I am pretty sure there has been no sucessful prosecution for obscenity in the media since. We laugh at your "wardrobe malfunctions" and think you Americans are all wimps.
4) Terrorism and abduction are more serious threats than video games. Seriously, your kid is not likely to suffer death or injury from watching X-rated stuff. He/she might from playing football or cricket. I have seen children suffer serious injury playing in the park. When my parents were kids, they were machingunned and bombed by the Germans.Many parents in London come from counties where people are being killed on a daily basis (I have neighbours from Israel, Iraq, Somalia, and Sudan) There is a definite "get a life" factor here.
Very few parents are "sitting in front of the TV while their children play" in the UK - owing to our tax structure, having children pretty much guarantees poverty (50% of families in London with children live below the poverty line - and this often does mean going without meals, not just going without designer clothes). Parents are struggling to make ends meet, not just single parents. Parents are petty grateful that GTA will occupy their kids for days on end, unlike a night out at the cinema, where the money is gone in a single night's entertainment. Especially as one kid's copy entertains 4 or more kids for several days! Many want to be more involved in their children's lives, but find the conflict with the struggle for survival is a serious problem.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
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.
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.
"There are various good technical reasons to include clandestine data within a game, such as ... laziness"
Wow.
(Have cake) /\ (Eat cake) == false
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.
Oh my God! Parents are actually doing the parenting instead of the government and corporations?!
What is the world coming to?
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.