Slashdot Mirror
When Are Kids Old Enough to Play Videogames?
A piece at the MTV Multiplayer blog is exploring the issue of kids and gaming, wondering aloud how old is 'old enough'. A recent CES talk indicated that you should wait until at least seven to introduce your children to Mario, and we've talked in the past about the educational role games can have. MTV's Tracey John spoke to a pair of mothers who offered their own opinions on this topic: "When I asked Alisa why she thought that games weren't imaginative and explained that many games have challenging, puzzle-solving elements, she conceded a little but remained skeptical. 'Honestly, I haven't really explored video games thoroughly, and I'm sure there are video games that fit more the bill of something that I'd be interested in, but I'm kind of hard-pressed to find a game that's like reading a book or something like that. I understand the kids like it, so I allow them to do it; it's monitored but it's not my favorite thing for them to be doing.'" What's the right age for a kid to start playing games? Do you see games as more or less acceptable than traditional kid pastimes like TV or reading? Does it matter if the parents are gaming-savvy?
the parent(s) decide they are old enough. IMHO
Take some responsibility for your kids, parents, it doesn't hurt as bad as you might think.
...they know not to wiped out my saved game. Little bastards...
If you'd just do what we tell you and quit yer gripin' everything would be chocolate sprinkles and rainbows! -AC
No reason to force your kindergartner to play Grand Theft Auto, but if they want to play Mario or Pong or Tetris, it'll probably do more for their brain and development than passively watching VeggieTales.
I installed Edunbuntu on a old laptop and my 4yr old loves the Childs Play games.
I have a one of the $20 multi game things. Mr PacMan, Pole Pos, Xevious, Mappy, Galaga.
My kids like to watch me and my wife play.
My two year old thinks he is the ghosts when he plays Ms. Pacman, and he also seems to like Xevious.
I should note my kids don't know how to work the VCR, DVD, or TV remote and are have a very limited TV schedule and game time is even less then that.
So I guess, when they are able to physically play let them play. It is now part of our culture.
I expect to get a wii sometime this year just need to save my pennies.
Playing a video game, where they're actually interacting, thinking, solving puzzles, whatever, is far better than just sitting there passively staring at the screen. And if you get them a Wii, there's even an element of exercise to it.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
You have to approach this through terms they know, in that any form of media you expose kids to, you have to ask someone why one is OK and another isn't? If it's pure ignorance, they have no case. If they start citing things like violence, imagery, etc, you confront them with the ratings system, and inquire about how they choose movies, TV, etc, and why they'd allow a higher rating on the games than the other media, and then start complaining about the games.
Just as I wouldn't expose a child to the "Saw" series I probably wouldn't give them GTA or some of the more gory games either. So why is there such an uproar about the latter, but not the former? It's just plain ignorance.
Right out of the hospital, I'd say. It's a matter of finding the right controller. A tit shaped force feedback controller perhaps?
I have 2 kids, 2.5 and 1.5 they both have always had video games around I mean they probably heard Zelda In utero. They both know how to move a guy on the screen with a d-pad, they both know how to push buttons, how to get a game to boot up on a gameboy (insert game switch power on).
There was no "start" I played games with the kids in my lap from the first day they were born. It is part of their life, part of their culture, part of their education.
It is like asking how old they should be before they are allowed to listen to a conversation...
"Every book is a childrens book if the kid can read."
Whether a child is "Ready" for such things isnt something that can really be generalized. It really depends on each individual child, their ability to see the difference between reality and escapism, and their desire to make use of this kind of media.
Ice Cream has no bones.
When I was growing up, for educational games we had Number Munchers, Oregon Trail, Otter Lake, etc. While educational, we never really thought of them as being so because of how they were designed; they were just plain fun, while still being highly educational. Most games I see for kids nowadays seem to be more about entertainment than education.
For me personally, I would want my kid to play things like an Atari 2600, old NES games, old arcade games like Galaga, etc. The purpose behind this is to improve their hand/eye coordination and reaction time, two things that would benefit them in every day life. While every child is different, if pressed to pick an average I would say sometime between the ages of 4-6, depending on the intelligence level and how quickly they developed.
Living With a Nerd
I would find it hard to make the argument that games will ever "equal" books, for the same reason that movie versions of books often don't live up to the original books.
Books require a lot more imagination than games or movies because you have to infer what the people/places/things in the book look/act like based off of the descriptions.
That being said, I think it is hard to compare the three. A book like Hitchhikers Guide would make a poor game (IMO). A game like Metal Gear would make a poor movie (IMO). A game like Bioshock would make a poor book (IMO). But each of those excel at what medium they actually are expressed in.
When we were snowed in last week my daughter and I played some Wii tennis. She's 3.5 years old, bowling was a bit much for her and she lacked the eye-hand coordination for the baseball game. She also likes to hop around on Dance Dance Revolution mats, but is pretty far from being able to line up steps with the screen.
I know I was a Pac-man player around age 5-6, but with the Wii being so engaging I can see kids taking off using it sooner. Plus in areas with terrible weather it is a nice way to keep kids moving when outdoor play is not available.
My daughter is already facinated by games, and she's 3. She loves watching daddy play WoW, and most Wii games. She doesn't have the cooridnation yet, but she still loves to play games.
I think any time a child shows interest in any activity, as long as it's monitored and moderated, they should be allowed to do it. And as far as how it compares to the TV; games are more like books that a child can play. I personally think they rank right up there with books as far as importance in this day and age ( note that this means if my daughter plays games for an hour, we read for an hour too ).
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
partitioned my c: drive and installed Kubuntu whilst I was outside cleaning the car. She was playing Portal when I left her - I swear it was under twenty minutes and I was watching her through the window the hole time!
"He Who Dares Wins"
A skills-based game, like Super Mario Bros. as a classic example, teaches the meaning of success and failure (something schools increasingly don't do). If you are good enough, you will win; otherwise, you fail. But everyone fails at first, over and over again; these games teach that if you want to be good at something, you have to suffer through being bad at it for a while, but you will eventually improve.
Games like the traditional JRPG or most MMORPGs probably shouldn't be played by children, as they teach that the way to succeed is not to improve your own skills, but to put in a lot of time leveling up. This perspective will be useless in the real world unless they get one of the few seniority-based union jobs.
This sort of philosophical distinction is seldom appreciated in discussions of children and video games, being drowned out by a debate centered on violence, but I think that in a long-term sense it's a much more important consideration.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
It all depends on how much cognitive development you want to provide for your child.
I contend that video games don't harm cognitive development, but they (for the most part) don't help it either. Books, on the other hand, do. It's not so much on what's the appropriate time, but rather how much time is appropriate. I started playing video games at the age of seven, but my hours were heavily regulated by my mom, who (like the librarian she was) made sure that I was reading my quota of books for the week and getting my schoolwork done. On the other hand, if you're letting a seven-year-old frag away for five hours a day, then I'd really start getting concerned.
For those who disagree with my statement that video games do not help cognitive development, they don't. Cognitive science research indicates that students develop with "experience," experience being anything that a child experiences, from eating a meal to smelling something yucky to hitting a baseball to getting hit by a snowball to climbing a kitchen cabinet to get to the cookie jar that mom set down on top. Then, as a child learns words, they match words to experiences. If a child limits what they do every day to watching TV and playing video games, they don't get much opportunity to learn by doing. And for a child, tactile learning and feedback plays a crucial role in cognitive development.
I started my niece and nephew on games at an early age - but I kept it strictly limited to older and simpler games, primarily Atari 2600 ports. When they're 3-4 years old, they can't understand anything overly complicated and should focus primarily on movement and avoidance, as well as pursuit of obvious goals. The games should be fairly easy as well, until they begin to reach their second decade (or until they start to show real skill and need a challenge).
A younger kid can easily enjoy a primitive video game just as well as we could (back when those games were new). It's not until they're exposed to more modern games that the old games begin to show their age. Tempest, Galaga, Pac-Man, Space Invaders, Robotron, and other simple games are ideal for children. Save the modern console games for later, when their minds are hungry for more. Educational games are great, but entertainment is a goal in itself - and entertainment is the first priority of any game, with educational value being a secondary bonus in some cases. Do the education yourself, and let them learn to have fun with their games before you start turning them into work.
That said, educational games are extremely useful, and can form a major component of their learning. They have little value until the child can read well, though. Reading software is entertaining, but usually (from what I've experienced with my relatives) are susceptible to being bypassed by an imaginative child - my niece got through most of her "reading" games without bothering to actually read much.
The key issue, and the one that people usually seem to miss or be incapable of enforcing, is moderation. Limited video game time will not harm your child. Parents can maintain total control of any source of video games when their children are young, and can maintain significant control even into their teens. The primary mistake average parents make is the same one our parents usually made with TV - specifically, using it as a pacifier. If you hand your kid a console, show them how to use it on their own, and then provide very little supervision, the kid WILL spend hours upon hours on his games. Too much time spent in a virtual environment just plain isn't good - but that doesn't mean that limited and controlled time, especially when active parental interaction is involved, is in any way damaging.
Moderation is key, in almost all things. Especially when it comes to children and video games.
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
I have two children. One played mostly educational games such as the Jumpstart and Reader Rabbit series from an early age, even pre-kindergarten. The other showed no interest in games and preferred to play with traditional toys. The one that played games is in the top 10% of their age group for reading and reading comprehension, where the one that did not play games is an average reader. Both grew up in the same environment with lots of children's books to read and have had bedtime stories read to them since birth. They even had the same school teachers, yet one surpasses the other. I am pretty sure the educational software had a large part in assisting a beginning reader and giving them a solid foundation to build on.
I'm not sure if it's awesome or awesomely disturbing that you've just cribbed parenting advice from the movie 'Ronin.' Bold move, in any case. I can't wait to tell my kids that they talk a good game in the living room, but they're weak when they put their spikes on.
Damn you, Babel Fish Dispenser!
Think about it.
No, technology's not quite that advanced yet. You still have to press the buttons.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
What about LEGOS!? Seriously, they have a track record of several decades of non-damaging, brain-challenging, mind-engaging entertainment, and have been responsible for the last ~75 years of engineers. On that note, you might want to keep your kids away from them, or else the /. boards will be flooded in 15 years. Who knows what logical thinking and problem solving will do to today's society?
They're an entertaining diversion that, while not inherently destructive, can be damaging when eaten to excess or in place of other foods. I'm giving games the benefit of the doubt and assuming we're talking about age-appropriate titles and not GTA. Some games have puzzles, but it's nothing compared to, say, playing a strategy board game, doing a crossword puzzle, playing chess, etc. And games do little to enhance verbal ability, unlike reading. If you want to develop fine motor skills, why not take up billiards, foosball, table tennis, golf, etc.
Just like eating one serving of fries isn't going to kill you, neither will playing a moderate amount of games rot a kid's brain. But if he eats fries five times a day and consequently skips the vegetables and fruit...there will be consequences. Also, just like fries (and other unhealthy foods) games can be quite addictive.
Parents holding their kids back from videogames probably have all the best intentions in mind - as they should, since kids are in no position to do so by themselves. The constant rabble about Japanese teenagers dying at the local internet café after playing WOW 36 hours straight, or kids steeling cars after playing GTA is all the reason most parents need to be sceptic about computergames.
The lack of games actually targeted towards 2-7 year old kids is a much bigger problem IMHO.
I am a 34 year old gamer, and I have a 2½ year old daughter. I have tried on countless occasions to teach her how to play games (on our PC, Mac, Xbox PS2, DS) but most of the games are either too abstract or too advanced for her. Keep in mind that something as simple as "shooting" is a rather advanced concept for a 2-year old girl, and that "death" or "number of lives" can be a hard thing to teach a kid that age.
The real question is not "when are kids old enough to play videogames" but rather: "when are they old enough to become a target group" in the videogame industry,
Today's games are ill suited for very small kids - not because games in general are bad for kids - but simply because the lack of demand for such videogames has resulted in the absolute absence of suitable games for kids of that age!
- Jesper
(And BTW: suggestions on good games for a 2½ year old girl are welcome...)
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
My kid is going to be the next "Tiger Woods" of the gaming world. He's going win hundreds of thousands of dollars before hes ten years old.
It's also about fitting in socially. As a boy anyway most of your peers are going to be playing video games. It gives you some common experiences. I also believe that playing video games helps get children into the computer culture we have today. Children learn hand eye coordination as well as navigating UI's that are needed for important job skills later.
I know that i got into computer because of video games. I played console games but when my parents got a PC i was determined to play games on it. The drive i had to actually use the computer enabled me to learn my way around the OS when i couldn't figure something out. If there was noting interesting on the computer for me i would have not used it when it wasn't working. Instead i learned how to fix any problem on a computer myself, something i am very happy i know how to do for myself today.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
When you find somebody who's really qualified to give "expert" opinions on how random people should raise their kids (keeping in mind situations and kids and parents are all different in many ways), you let me know.
... I'm entirely comfortable making my own decisions on how to raise my kids (4.5 and 2). The 4yo would play Yoshi's Island (DS) every waking hour if we let her, but we don't. :) She's learned letters, numbers, colors, phonics, reading and basic math through a combination of us reading with her, educational games (LeapFrog is your friend here), websites like starfall.com (hat tip to Gabe @ Penny-Arcade) and good old-fashioned one-on-one teaching and repetition.
In the meantime
Games have their place, just like anything else (including computers; she can't type yet, but she can navigate her favorite educational websites just fine). They're no more or less dangerous to kids' development than Baby Einstein videos, or educational TV, or pop-up books, or [insert controversial newfangled technology here].
The key here, as with everything else in life, is moderation and good sense.
illum oportet crescere me autem minui
Even better than reading, too, is getting kids to actually create something, rather that achieve or solve preordained puzzles. Drawing, writing, play-acting... or even getting them started on a programming language once they can read, so they can make their own games. (An old BASIC computer/implementation, or something very high-level and instant-gratification like INFORM 7 might be good.)
I know I was personally quite a way ahead of my peers in things like algebra growing up, from little more than having to know the concepts in order to get anywhere on my old C64.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Being the father of a 5yo and 3yo, I admit they have started playing games. This includes PC games like Reader Rabbit and Dora. I have personally witnessed the increase in problem solving ability, basic math and reading, and a little strategy.
However, we do limit them. The most I have let one play is 60 minutes non-stop. Daddy does have to be mean and turn it off sometimes, even to the chorus of tears. Computer time is probably the first privilege they lose when they are disciplined.
They play on them in school. I have no issue with them understanding a mouse click or keyboard. Think of yourself learning how to use a computer. Now think of your parents learning the same thing. You probably had an advantage because you started when you were younger. I feel that if they are comfortable with technology now, they will be more able to assimilate it as they grow up.
I also let them play on the Wii. They are actually quite good at some games. The 5yo has a +170 average on bowling and can also post a decent golf score. I believe it helps their gross and fine motor skills, as well as get some exercise. Anyone who has boxed a few rounds knows what I am talking about.
Like everything in life, the key is moderation...
Fast, cheap, correct. You get to pick two.
Like candy. A little bit of TV or Video Games is fine, but a steady diet for a young child is a bad idea.
My kids are 8, 5, and 2. We like to make sure they get a balance of human interaction and physical activity, but once they've done that, there's nothing wrong with them spending 30 minutes or so playing Mario on the Wii, or watching TV.
Hey, if people have problems with letting their kids play video games at a young age, go ahead stop them.
:P
Me, I'm of another camp.
My wife and I started my oldest daughter on the computer when she was 18 months. Loaded up reader rabbit--which is a pretty good starter, where she could start by just banging the keyboard and see stuff happen.
By three, she had mastered drag & drop, thanks to Dora the Explorer and some other games.
At four she saw a game in the store (Zoo Tycoon) and liked the animals, and asked if she could play that. I told her it was probably a tad hard for her, but she insisted she could learn. I bought it and installed it. I helped her get it started, but told her she had to figure it out if she wanted to play. At first she had problems getting the cages built right, and the lions would get out and start going after the patrons... she FREAKED out...of course, after I calmed her down, and gave her a couple hints, she started to get it. She then needed to learn what environment for each animal... She was just learning to read small words at the time, and so I showed her the online help, and told her to keep sounding out the words.
Well, a couple weeks later, she's telling my wife and I all about lions, and how they prefer the Savannah grass, and other things they like. My wife didn't know how she learned it, and when we asked my daughter, she told me she read it in the game. Turns out that she taught herself to read pretty well in a matter of a few weeks.
Now, she's almost six, plays alot of games (including Oblivion, Viva Pinata, Sim City and others), and can read *REALLY* well, along with fantastic math and science comprehension. She also paints and plays sports.
But, hey, if you are afraid that your kids will suffer from too much video games... go ahead, my kids will dominate in the future.
A
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
That is relatively close to my timeline, except I was raised by hippies. None of this coddling, think of the children BS. I was taught right and wrong, the differences between fantasy/fiction/reality, that I could say or do anything as long as it did not hurt another person, and that a person's word should never be broken. I was let into the real world.
That being said, I grew up cussing, watching what ever tv program I wished (not based on ratings), playing any make-believe game I could think of no matter the content, asking to be taught math, playing chess or checkers, reading/having REAL books read to me, realizing sex would eventually happen and it's natural, watching/being told family pets die, burying dead pets, watching/being told family members die, knowing not to steal but knowing I easily could, etc.
Sure, I am not "Normal" - but when I look at how my friend's families are, and how "Normal" people act or (don't) think - I'm ecstatic about my childhood.
We are not two separate species. There is not Homo sapien youngus and Homo sapien adultus, there is no age where suddenly we naturally understand the world. We learn through knowledge and experience. I understood more than my friends/classmates simply because I had started learning (just about everything) at an earlier age!
What I'm saying is, let go of most of the control! Don't try to create a list of the only things little junior is allowed to do/try. Sure you'll take out all the bad things, but you'll also miss most of the good. Sure, he'll specialize in hop-scotch, tag, pong, and super mario brothers... but he'll completely miss out on everything else - everything that will eventually be important to him, become his real life.
If I find them playing Grand Theft Auto at the next-door neighbor's house at the age of 10, I'm going to have a stern talk with the parent. They can't use the excuse "video games are harmless" because I'd just show them my International Game Developers' Association card - they knew I knew better than them.
Harmless? No, I'll give you that. There is almost nothing, from tv to video games to books to playing with the neighbor, that is harmless. The trick isn't protecting your child from harmful materials, but teaching them how they should act and think about those materials in a non-harmful way.
Just -1, Troll talking to another.
My son's been playing video games since he was 2. (He's 4 now.) When he first started, he didn't quite grasp how to move the mouse to get the pointer to do what he wanted. He quickly picked it up though and became quite the computer whiz. He even figured out how to launch his game from the Start Menu, which is quite impressive since he doesn't even read yet! (That we know of... maybe he's just playing dumb to lull mommy and daddy into a false sense of security. ;-) )
While visiting a zoo one day, they had a Fisher Price exhibit and he tried out the SmartCycle. The lady there was amazed that he picked up on all of the controls almost instantly. (He seems to have inherited his daddy's knack for computers.) In December, he got the SmartCycle as a present and loves pedaling, choosing which games to play, and playing all of the games that we've bought him. He doesn't need anyone to show him how something works. He just does it once or twice and figures it out.
Sure, the video games he's playing are educational in nature and not Super Mario Brothers-type games (much less Grand Theft Auto-type games), but I think introducing computers to toddlers is important. Just make sure to balance their activities out.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Drawing is one thing most kids don't really get the chance to do. A lot of parents will give kids crayons and a coloring book and say their kid is doing art. And while those can be great, it doesn't really give the kid a chance to create anything. Give the kid a blank piece of paper, and see what they draw.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Hell, Mario Brothers demonstrably makes a great game, but a poor movie ;) Not to mention Mortal Kombat (great soundtrack, but that's about it).
Games are just a new form of media, and should be treated as such. If your kid never goes outside and gets exercise because s/he's always reading a book, that's just as unhealthy as if they were always playing a video game, or always watching TV, or whatever. Balance and moderation are the key, as well as maturity. Just like driver's licenses, even though the law says 16, I knew some kids who I would trust driving at 14, and I know some 40 year olds and it scares the hell out of me that they still have their licenses.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
We try to approach this with a nerdly view, both Piaget and culture geek influenced. We balance things out with counter-activities and limits. If they want to watch the "idiot-box," they have to prove it won't make them idiots by doing some book research: just about anything, so long as they prove they're developing research skills. We don't have cable, but an excellent collection of video including documentaries. To play a couchpotato video game for an hour, they have to play hard outside for 20 minutes or bounce on the rebounder non-stop 300 times each.
Don't deprive, don't indulge, and be involved. In my home we want the kids to have the same fun and cultural reference as their peers, but develop in a non-alienated way. Two hours of screen time (tv or gaming) a day max, and we aim for less than 10 hours per week. We often read aloud or sitting next to each other. Plus, if they start to obsess, they wind up on a 'diet,' learning restraint and dosage (and better negotiation technique). We do see TV and gaming as consciousness-altering and physiologically risky.
Both parents teach media literacy workshops on the side, so we have to eat our own dog food! But the thing is that the kids rarely got introduced to a show or game without a parent ready to interject. Thus, they are pretty clear on the nature of advertising, product tie-in, and consumer choice, as well as ferreting out the values they're getting from a show or game. We introduced them to video games slowly, later for the girl (starting age 6) because she's a ferocious reader and didn't show much interest, earlier for the boy (starting @ 4) so that his peer pressure wasn't too awkward. Basically, we started with puzzle games, then moved to management games, then action games. It worked well to keep them focused on playing smart, so I recommend a staged method of introduction.
This approach works for us, because the primary entertainment around here is a book.
Damn those pesky terrorists
I've let my kid play videogames with me, or watch me play since he was three. He's now five. But as with TV, we restrict it quite a bit. He should be spending most of his time coloring, constructing, reading, etc.
I personally think that games are better than TV, but that both are bad if that's all the kid ever does. Five ours sitting in front of the tube is bad, regardless of whether the kid has a controller in his hands.
The other rule is that he plays games with us, not alone. (Well, me...my wife doesn't game.) Videogames aren't there to babysit the kid. They're a father-son bonding experience.
The cake is a pie
That of weapon choice. No way your kid is going to pwn anyone in Halo if he's using the first thing he finds (e.g. banana), it needs to be a split second decision based on what is available vs strengths and weaknesses of opponent.
Don't worry, he'll get it, but not if you cut him back to 4 hours, this requires mentoring by you and probably 8 to 10 hours per day, anything less is child abuse. Go get 'em.
Not sure you used the best example here.
As to your point, I think you're almost correct. They are different mediums and have different strengths and weaknesses. I don't think the original medium has too much to do with it. Bioshock would make an excellent book or movie imo, Metal Gear could make a very cool movie, and well, HHGTTG already did make a game that I know a lot of people enjoyed. There would be some changes, such as obviously a book about Bioshock wouldn't be "and then our hero whacked yet another splicer with his wrench, and another, oh, and another." for the entire book, but the story and setting overall could be very cool.
I think what the mediums are best for expressing are what make them pointlessly different to compare. Books more easily introduce you to better vocabulary, force you to use your imagination more, etc. TV can introduce you to new music, allow you to actually see new/different parts of culture with your eyes and hear them with your ears which is different from reading about them where your imagination could misinterpret them, and so on. Video games can do similar things to TV as far as what you can see and hear along with excercising your reflexes and coordination and excercising your problem solving skills.
If your writing in that post is an example of what happens to children who grow up playing console games I hope that any parents reading it will take it as a warning.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
As these posts have shown, when the whole family is doing it's a social activity. You can all participate, share stories, reenact bits, talk strategy, etc etc. It's more social than passively sitting around a TV together, that's for sure. A really small child participating in that is just participating in the family social structure.
For a family without gaming parents, though, I can understand why there might need to be different limits. If a 5-year-old is the only person in the family playing video games, it's going to be a more isolated activity. Time they could be spending playing with their parents will be spent alone, for all intents and purposes. Sure, the parents should try to be involved in *everything* their kid does - but if the parent doesn't really understand videogames and their social potential themself, they will have a very hard time getting involved in the same way a gamer parent would. They might hover around and watch to make sure Johnny doesn't play anything violent, they might even ask questions or try to help him solve puzzles. But I'm sure it would never occur to them that even in a one-player game, two people can act as a team with the second person providing feedback and suggestions, or that they might actually have fun if they get an account on the same site and play the game alongside their kid. So without the same social element, it makes sense to have different limits.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Exactly! I'd wager that it was video games that got most of us computer professionals (IT, programmers, etc) into the world of computing in the first place.
So if the parents play video games (probably more likely than not these days), the kids will at least "play" that they play video games starting when they are 1 to 2 years old. About one year later, they will be able to actually play the games. I don't see any reason to prevent them from playing real video games at that point.
If the parents doesn't play video games, the kids won't be interested for a couple of years more, when they get playmates who play video games. I don't see any reason to introduce them to games before that, nor to stop them when they ask for it.
For pre-schoolers, you choose the games. For primary schoolers, they probably want to choose the games, but you should play the games as well. After that, general advice is more harmful than helpful. It depends too much on you and the kid.