Family Group Releases Annual Games Report Card

The National Institute on Media and the Family has released their annual 'report card' for the videogames industry. Brian Crecente has some great commentary on the release, which he refers to as 'increasingly out-dated and unnecessary, something that probably explains the desperate tone of this year's report'. "What's interesting is that the summary cites very specific examples for the positive, such as Target removing Manhunt 2 from shelves after finding AO content was viewable with a hack, or that GameStop has started firing people for selling M-rated games to minors, but doesn't really do the same for the negative. Instead [NIMF's David Walsh] writes that 'Complacency, especially on the part of retailers and parents, appears to have caused a backslide in ratings awareness and enforcement.'" The ESRB was quick to point out the flaws in the group's assertions, while a UK study indicates that some 75% of parents are worried about the games their kids play.

Comments

Then 75% of parent's

[aztektum]

Should make sure they don't play the particular games they are worried about. It beats the alternatives I can come up with.

Re:Then 75% of parent's

[Gideon Fubar]

Parents? responsible for taking care of their own children?

you sir, are clearly a terrorist. :/

Re:Then 75% of parent's

[enderjsv]

75% of parents are worried, eh? Yet, when a Fox affiliate interviewed a group of parents about the parental control settings on the Xbox 360, most of them had no idea there were controls and the ones who did had no idea how to set them. Laziness > Concern.

Re:Then 75% of parent's

[0xdeadbeef]

Well damn, it looks like we need to pass a law to put warning labels on your kid's friends' parents.

Re:Then 75% of parent's

[HappyDrgn]

This is not very hard to do. My son knows which games he can play and which ones he can not play. When I buy a new game and he sees it he will always ask first if it's a game he is allowed to play. If he wants to keep playing games and wants me to keep buying him new ones, then he is to not complain about which ones he can play. Which there are some very fun kid friendly games out there, mostly for the Wii, which he has a large library. The xbox is a little limited however, I've only found a few that are for his age. This works the same for movies too! I don't understand parents who have trouble with this. I was over at Gamestop the other day picking up Mario Galaxy for him and Mass Effect for myself, while a mother was there buying Halo3 for her son. She asked the guy at the counter if it was violent and if it had adult language. When he answered yes to both questions SHE BOUGHT IT ANYWAY!!!
 
That being said I would like to see better parental controls in game systems. An access allow/deny list type thing would work perfectly if added into the xbox style profiles. Give each person in the house a profile, perhaps with a password and choose to allow all access or only certain games to each profile. This would prevent a child who was able to buy/borrow/rent a mature game from a store that did not care the ability to play it. This is not to say good parenting can be replaced with a switch on the game system (which is how most parents would treat it I'm sure), it would be a reliable extra step to make sure kids dont play adult games in my house however.

Re:Then 75% of parent's

[jdgeorge]

I don't know any "responsible parent" that would let their child go under the supervision of another adult without first speaking with said adult and sorting out things like not allowing them access to violent or pornographic media.

I expect that most people, if they thought that the other adult in question would NEED to be advised to keep the child away from violent or pornographic media, just wouldn't allow their children to visit. That is not where I see the potential problem.

The issue is where the adults in question don't supervise their children especially closely, and generally assume they are keeping out of trouble as long as they are not making too much noise. Add a teenager into the mix, and the likelihood that the children are properly supervised has potential to decline without any obvious negligent behaviour by the adults in question.

Essentially, someone who believes responsible parenting is easy/simple is not well informed; it requires a LOT of work and personal involvement.

Re:Then 75% of parent's

[Von Helmet]

When I was little (like, 6 years old) I asked my dad about various board games that we had in the cupboard. I remember asking whether we could play Monopoly, and he said not yet, but that I could play it when I was older. I thought it must have boobs or something in it. Imagine my disappointment...

Ratings systems

[Merls the Sneaky]

Rating systems are no substitute for good parenting. That includes playing or at least monitoring the games your children play.

Re:Ratings systems

[Nos.]

Absolutely, but there is nothing wrong with a rating system in general. As a parent, am I expected to keep up on every game for the game platform(s) in my household. Suppose walking through the store one day a child sees a game on sale and wants it. The child has been behaving and doing extra chores, and I feel buying a game for him/her is not out of the question. If there is no rating system, I have little choice but to say "No", or at least "Not yet", and go home and research the game before returning to the store to purchase it, or another instead.

As a parent I'm all for the rating system and fining retailers for not enforcing them. If, as a parent, I feel its okay for my child to play a game rated for older than he/she is, then I will go to the store with said child and purchase it for them. This is not a big deal to me, and certainly preferrable to my child doing hookers and mugging them afterwards in a game, when they're too young to even know what sex is.

When my children are old enough for games, they will only be playing them in common areas of the house so we can monitor what they are playing. But as much as you try to, you can't watch what they're doing 24/7.

Re:Ratings systems

[plague3106]

Yup. They should have to. That's the point.

Who are you to tell another person how they should be raising their child? If another parent feels comfortable enough to let their kid make their own decision about what game to get, what gives you the right to force them to do more effort?

As far as watching my kid 24/7, you're taking a very literal approach to what I said. Of course I don't expect to, or even want to watch my children every moment of their lives, but I do have a desire to protect them and only introduce certain parts of life to them when they are ready, regardless of age.

Well those were your words, not mine. It seems to me that if a child should stumble upon something, you'd be able to talk to them about it, thus making them more ready then pretending they're not going to get exposed to something you dislike and not talking about it.

Seems most of the people who are against the rating system fit into one of two categories. Kids who are not old enough to purchase the game without a parent around, or the parents who couldn't be bothered to go down with their child to purchase the game that they deem is appropriate, regardless of the rating.

I'm neither. I do resent though be carded to buy a game. I also resent that games are toned down to fit into some box, and that other games are never even created at all because of console maker rules. You chose to have kids, yet more and more that choice is affecting my life and freedom. Ratings systems lead to censorship, I don't appreciate that. Nor do I apprecate having to jump through hoops because you would rather a ratings system so you don't have to research. What's worse is that you are willing to do the work, you'd just rather not.

I tend to think that if you want to shelter your kids, its your choice to create and maintain that bubble. It shouldn't be societies cost to help you do it though.

So 75% of parents need help parenting

[Sciros]

If you're "worried about the games your kids play," then you either
a) haven't taught them to listen to you when it comes to not playing certain games
b) haven't bothered to look at what games your kids play to begin with
c) don't trust your kids to not be adversely affected by the games they *do* play
d) haven't a freaking clue about games, period, and don't understand that they don't affect your kids in any harmful way unless there's some other serious issues that need looking into in the first place.

Re:So 75% of parents need help parenting

[krotkruton]

I think this was just another poor use of surveys. The article's title said "worried", but used the word "concerned" in the body. I agree that parents should be concerned about what their kids play. They should be concerned about how well they are doing at school as well as what they eat and who their friends are.

If asked if you are concerned about the types and content of games your kids play, I think most parents would say yes. If asked if you are worried about your kids playing violent video games, I think a much lower percentage would say yes. It's all about the wording in those damn surveys, and this one seems like it had quite a bit of spin to it.

Why are violent games controversial?

[0xdeadbeef]

We live in a country whose government considers torture both moral and lawful. How else do they expect us to condition children to accept that if we don't start early? I mean, it's not like many eight-year-olds watch 24, it comes on after their bedtime.

Re:Why are violent games controversial?

[ucblockhead]

You should talk to a third grade teacher. You'd be shocked what parents let their kids watch.

Nice to see Parental Involvement rated.

[dbhost]

But I honestly believe Parental involvement is a KEY factor in controlling the development of a child. If I were issuing the grade it would be F -. If you believe that Violent video games have a damaging impact on your child, and then you bring a game console into your home, allow your child an allowance, and do not monitor that child's usage of said console, or time spent with his / her friends, what right do you have in being surprised when your child is impacted by something you do not approve of. It's not the government's, nor is it the media industries job to raise YOUR child. Be an adult and do your job!

Concerned != worried

[PMuse]

From TFA: 75 per cent of respondents were concerned about the content in videogames that their children played.

Of course parents are concerned. Any responsible parent would be. But that's not the interesting question. The interesting question is "Do you feel that you have access to enough information ensure that the games your kids own meet your standards for content?" Put that question in your survey and smoke it, why don't you!

I'll always be concerned at one level or another about what's in the media my kids consume, but I'm not worried about it in the slightest.

The full NIMF report card

[bn0p]

The full NIMF report is located at http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/legal/NIMF-2007.pdf. Some of the report makes sense (like having parents learn more about game ratings) and some of it does not (e.g., recommending that the ratings board review all the code in a game before assigning a rating, not just the "official" game code - how many games would get rated each year if they had to do that?).

Their main gripes about the ESRB seem to focus on children somehow getting to Adults Only (AO) content in Mature (M) rated games like Manhunt 2. Is it just me or is it not common sense that an "M" rating means that a 12 year old should not be playing the game in the first place?


Never let reality temper imagination