Slashdot Mirror
A Real Mom Reviews the Games Industry Report Card
Last month's National Institute on Media and the Family 'report card' was pretty much more of the same from the reactionary group. Recently a real parent (Colleen Hannon from GamerDad) sat down with the report to offer up some comments. "They still can't seem to read the names of the games off the front of the box. What they have listed as 'Call to Duty 4' is actually Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. That may seem like a minor mistake, but if you type what's on their list into a search engine to get more information off the ESRB's website or Google, it won't return the real results on the game. And without that last bit at the end, you're going to get a list with all the games in the series which can be confusing and not all of them are M rated. For someone who thinks parents should pay more attention and research they aren't helping them out much." Via GamePolitics.
Frag?
This whole mess is more about politicians being able to seemingly protect children, and get money/support from lobbying groups that want to protect the children than anything else. Parents that truly care take the time to look at the back of the box, read the descriptions and check the ESRB sticker. They don't bow to pressure from their kids to get a game that they're not comfortable with their kids playing. And then they probably watch their kid play some and make sure it's not outrageous.
Parents that don't care, or are just prone to give into their kids anyway aren't going to do any research and aren't going to be watching their kids play.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
... with someone who's completely biased the other way?
OK, so she's a "mom", but that doesn't make her the spokesperson for all moms.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
First Off:
"Retailers must return to the level of compliance in previous years" - Ok, lets see when I was a Babbages(Now Gamestop) Manager we didn't enforce anything. You have $59.99 to buy this game here is your copy. You know what - thats the way it should be. Your the parent pay attention to what your kid is buying and playing.
Then:
The list of games to avoid, thats a joke too, at least without context. My Daughter is 10 weeks old, but lets scale this up and say she was 10 Years Old instead. I'll go an record as saying several of those games I would let her play when she is a 10yo I don't see a problem. The Half-Life franchise, Gears of War, Call Of Duty and several others I'll let her play those from the moment she can point the mouse in the right direction. She will know the difference between shooting someone on a computer and really shooting someone. Thats my job as a parent to teach her that. Its not some out side random organization's job to dictate that to my child. Now its also important to note that she will not have a computer/game system (or TV for that matter) in her own room until she is 14 at least. Therefore the only systems she will have access too will be in shared and/or public spaces in our house. We will know what she is doing.
"Mediawise Recommend Games for Children and Teens"
Not a shooter among them interesting...guess what shooters are fun, and they always have been Atari 2600 when I was kid had a shooter came with the system it was called "Combat" funny that...all those games of combat and I'm not twisted warped or on death row.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
My girlfriend and I were discussing this a couple days ago, actually. We are both avid gamers (and also both 23). She is more of a classic gamer (Atari, NES, etc.) and prefers platformers, puzzle games, and horror-style FPS (her current favourite to watch is Bioshock...she doesn't like playing scary games, but LOVES watching them be played). I am more of an "in the now" gamer (although I've been going through my back-catalogue of N64 games lately) and prefer RTS, RPG, and RPG/Shooter hybrids.
Both of us have no problem (and quite enjoy) violent video games. What happens when we have a kid?
The same thing that happend to us when we were little. Both her parents and my parents would ensure that we could discern the difference between the fantasy in a game and the reality in life...as long as we did that, there were no restrictions insofar as what we watched or what we played.
I imagine I'm going to do the same with my kid. Naturally, since both of us are regular gamers, we would prolly know what is in their games because we will have played them. Don't get me wrong, they aren't going to be in a Dukematch when they are five, but if at age 12 they want to play GTA7 and can prove to me that they know it is fantasy (and that they know what would happen if they did such things in real life), then they can play it to their heart's content. I would rather my kids be exposed to sex and violence early on in life enough to be able to look at it objectively and not be suprised when they are older and suddenly see something violent and react in the same way that most of the sheep do. I don't want them to be sheltered, I want show them that the world is a violent place, but I don't want to have to show them using national media or ogrish.com or some place like that. Video games make for the perfect medium to introduce children to modern day real issues while not succumbing them to all the bullshit that usually goes along with it.
After all, would you rather your kids learn about sex and violence WITHOUT you by their side?
Living With a Nerd
I've spent some time in game stores, and overheard a good few conversations. The best parents ask the salespeople what happens in the game. And the better salespeople can give the kind of information the parent wants:
"Some people fight each other. Like punching and kicking. There's not really so much blood, but the girls wear very revealing outfits."
"You skateboard around doing tricks. The crashes are pretty brutal, and there's some crude jokes."
"You collect and control little monsters that fight and stuff. You don't actually see them fight, you just kind of read what they did."
And I think that's what's missing from the ESRB web site - they don't give the kind of context many parents need to evaluate a game. Now I think it's reasonably clear a young kid shouldn't be playing either Dead or Alive Extreme 2 or Mass Effect (and both are M rated, which seems right) but look at the content descriptors:
Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes, Simulated Gambling
Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes, Blood, Language, Violence
From just that, you might think these are comparable games. Compare that to the information you get from a synopsis:
"You ogle bikini girls and buy them bikinis. That's the whole point of the game."
"You buy guns and shoot aliens. In the story, there's a love scene where you can see a girl's bum for a second."
Whatever you may think of the relative offensiveness of that content, I think that's information a parent needs to have in order to make a decision. These games' content are very different.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
The problem I've observed with too many parents is that they try to hard to be their children's buddy or they don't want to come off as uncool. So they wont even venture to ask about a game at the risk of coming off as a prude. Too many parents also apparently can't be bothered to look into what their kids are playing.
Earlier in the year when the media has spun itself into a frenzy, yet again, over violence in games they ran a story about a mother who was shocked to discover that the game she had purchased for her son, Grand Theft Auto, was violent. As if the name wasn't enough of a tip off to questionable subject matter she didn't even have the wherewithal to flip over the damn box and look at the rating or at least see what she could glean from the screenshots. Then again I've seen parents getting games for children which considerably more graphic imagery on the packaging. And I've seen parents taking small children to see fairly intense movies.
Too many parents can't be bothered to see what their kids are up to. The excuse I often hear is that they can't observe their kids 24 hours a day, so why even bother? They absolve themselves of responsibility and then expect the government to take over for them. And this is where the problem arises. They want to government to oversee everything so that they don't have to worry about anything.
Parents aren't supposed to by cool; they aren't supposed to be buddies. They need to be responsible for what their kids do and what they're exposed to.
For god sake stop retarding the development of your child. The human mind learns from input, be it media content, life, or activities. There is no such thing as bad input, ALL input is useful and the brain derives useful information from it, learns to cope with it, learns what to avoid from it, and so forth. You can't dictate how a child will interpret and store that input, nor are you bright enough to define it by regulating the input, they will get that input anyway eventually and you will only serve to have slowed their mental development.
Perhaps you think ignorant children playing with imaginary friends are cute. I prefer rational and logical children I can have a discussion with. Ignorance may be bliss but I don't know many adults who would choose to be ignorant or mentally retarded. Maybe you are in the other crowd who wants them to be childlike, read ignorant, for as long as possible so that they are easier to control. Unlike those other pesky teenagers who use critical thinking skills and ask authority figures, such as parents, hard questions, like "Why?"
How about you try something new. Stop censoring your children altogether, to hell with the other parents, and start advising your children on how THEY CHOOSE to interpret the input. There is nothing wrong with a child learning about the birds and the bees while a toddler. Exposure to foul language can an excellent introduction to the sensitivities of others and consequences. A video game with cars being chased by police (as mentioned in the article) is a great opener to a continuation of the discussion on consequences, being less of an establishment type I would have fun with that discussion. A three year old won't fully understand, but it all goes into that mind somewhere and who said these talks only occur once?
Worried about desensitization? Don't be. Sensitization is a bad thing, it's what happens when you are underexposed to something and you are unable to cope with the something. It may be a sad world we live in and there may be some things we don't want to have to cope with, but that is a seperate issue. Whether pleasant or unpleasant, it is never advantageous to not be able to cope with something. That leaves you less able to take rational action in the face of that something. Interestingly, the more you let yourself encounter things you are underexposed to, the better your brain becomes able to cope with not being able to cope and the more capable you are acting rationally.
I'm not saying go find the nastiest goat porn you can and start driving into your child's mind 24/7. I am merely saying don't censor what comes your way anyway.