Game Content Ratings Not Always To Be Trusted? 80
Thanks to Reuters for its article discussing video games rated 'T' for teens containing 'explicit' content that's not noted on the game box. According to Harvard-based researchers checking on the voluntary ESRB ratings for videogames: "Although most of the games' content matched their ratings, [the survey] found that 48 percent of games contained some content that was not noted on the game box." The piece goes on to note specific examples: "For instance, 12 of the 81 games showed the use of substances such as tobacco and alcohol, while only 1 game had received that type of content descriptor from the ESRB. And while the researchers reported sexual content in 22 games, only 16 had received a sexual content descriptor" - the survey abstract at the American Medical Association's site has further information on the researchers' results.
What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that a parent who would take the time and effort to fall in the first category would also be the kind of parent who spent 5 seconds looking at the video game and deciding whether the kid should be allowed to play it or not.
OTOH, parents who do not put that time and effort in to raising their kids would be the type to just shell out 40 dollars to shut the kid up for a week.
It's no wonder that kids who play these violent and sexually explicit games turn into the freaks they are. It isn't the games, it's the parents.
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
OT:ish - My Dad used to play the PC (and later console) games *with* us, part of both parents ideas that bringing us up was a joint venture and one best done by parents and not TV, teachers nor other outsiders. I'm very glad they were that oldfashioned.
newsflash (Score:5, Insightful)
""The absence of a content descriptor did not mean the absence of content that might concern parents," she[study author Kimberly Thompson] said."
If parents talked to their children about the things that they are doing, viz. active members in their lives, they will know that the child is playing videosgames with such content in it. Think. (are you ready) Think some more. When as a child, you played duke nukem, did the you discuss your gaming with your parents? I did. I told them all about how hillarious the game was. The hillarity is one that can be experienced only through the game, but in my explination of it, they understood that the beercans strewn around stripclubs where one is killing stripping aliens was funny. They were not offended in any way with the content of the game, only with my choice to play it instead of doing homework late at night.
The warnings on videogames are not meant for parents to keep children confined by having them not purchase such games, but to brace parents for the content of the game when the child discusses it with them.
I think Ms. Thompson understands this aspect of the gaming experience, perhaps in a familial if not personal way.
"She[study author Kimberly Thompson] added that she hopes these study results serve as a "wake up call" for parents, telling them they need to be aware of what their kids are being exposed to, both in video games and elsewhere."
This study is meant to shine light on parent's lack of involvement in children's lives, not asking for more strict ratings. Lets face it, if anyone makes blanket judgements on ratings, they are being ignorant of the product's value.
-i wish i were a teapot. That way if when im boiling you could pour me out.-
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is, even if a game is rated, you still need to check it out as a parent. Maybe the content is worse than the rating says. Maybe it's nothing and is something your family is fine with. How will you know if you don't even bother to check it out though. And even more importatnly, by checking it out you actually show that you have an interest in what your child is doing which speaks volumes compared to "just checking to make sure the rating is good"
Its a bad rating system. (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyways alot of Parents don't really know what the video game rating system entails, and because of not really knowing they will let there kid play whatever the hell they want, instead of making an informed decision that maybe that game where you play inmates that dig at each other with rusty hooks might not be suitable.
Now with the Movie rating system most people know what the hell the ratings are , or at least have a general idea. Your not going to let your 13 year old go to the R film (Heck most theatres won't even let your kid in) but the M rating on that game, your not quite sure about.
So what to do.. either raise awareness on what the ratings actually are and entail and make sure that the games get rated correctly (personally I am surprised that Manhunt only got mature) or scrap the system and rebuild from the ground up.
Alcohol, tobacco and sex (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Its a bad rating system. (Score:3, Insightful)
PG-13 indicates that, if a child is under thirteen, the parent should see the movie first, or see it with the child. Video games don't work that way... you can't just sit there playing Zelda: OOT with your kid for 50 hours. Your kid has more leisure time than you do.
So, continuing with OOT, you turn it on... you play the first hour... it seems really tame. Some scary spiders. So what?
Kid plays up to the Shadow Temple, and later, Ganon's Death...
Maybe not so tame. Maybe it's the difference between an 8-year old playing and a 12-year old playing.
Games are so long that you can't trust them to be consistent. PG-13 is an insane concept... they're all PG... on a different basis.
This is why the content descriptors are so detailed... and also why the games aren't always rated perfectly. Who can play through every budget level piece of rotting cow flesh that comes out of the industry and be sure that not one Easter egg is out of line for the rating? Why, only someone who has an axe to grind.... some interest in showing something controversial, instead of having another dull paper fall down the tubes.
Re:Its a bad rating system. (Score:5, Insightful)
And still, the rating-system is not (and cannot be!) neutral at all, not all parents will agree (or even come close to agree!) on what their kids should be shielded for. In particular, to most scandinawians the US guideleines are ridicolously strict on nudity and/or language, while being similarily soft on violence.
It's hard to believe this has to do with the well-being of children, more likely it reflects the puritanity of the reviewers or the parents.
No kid will ever be scared, hurt or otherwise damaged by seeing a naked female breast. Indeed most kids do so from age ~2 minutes. Noone is going to wake up in the nigth, having nigthmares, because they've seen a penis.
It always seemed ridiculous to me that in these rating-systems, showing 2 seconds of naked skin seems on par with decapitating people, blood gushing all over the place.
Thus, I'd never trust the rating-systems anyway, and would vastly prefer spending the required time myself to make up my own damn opinion. What's so wrong about spending time with your child anyway ?
standards (Score:1, Insightful)
The Truth Behind The Ratings (Score:4, Insightful)
Some games are mismarked, like Tony Hawk 3. It says "E" for everyone, but fails to mention the blood and swearing. I personally would still let anyone play it, since the context of the blood and swearing is appropriate. Some would disagree. Like a previous few comments, you have to play with or watch your kids play games if you want to know what they're playing.
But, since the ratings are goals, and not ends, you'll have kiddie games elevated to teen with gratuitous bodily functions, blood effects, and such. You'll have teen games elevated to Mature with bouncy boobs and over-the-top violence--despite these things being very purile, but fun! By elevating the ratings, the games are more enticing to the target audience because it's taboo, and you may pull in a couple people in the "as rated" audience who think it's for their age, not their kids.
Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. Teen (PG-13) is the desired audience for almost all games. You don't want an "M" unless you feel you'll sell a lot of them on the first day. The first Mortal Kombat is a great example how to ruin a game by dumbing down the violence for a broader audience.
So in the end, the games that are rated properly seem like the ones that are mismatched with the ratings! Just like the movies.
We need ONE ratings system (Score:3, Insightful)
Examples of tobacco/alcohol use? (Score:1, Insightful)
They could be smoking clove cigarettes and drinking no-alcohol beer for all these nannies know.
Re:The Truth Behind The Ratings (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, unlike the movies, the ratings board does not review the entire game. They review clips of the game that the developers submit. as the study points out, only about half the time are the ratings (descriptors) accurate. What this suggests is that some developers are deliberately misleading the review board and submitting clips that aren't fully representative of the game.
While I'm strongly in the "games really aren't that bad" camp, a flawed ratings system that is wrong half the time, just sets the industry up for criticism, government oversight and ultimately censorship; the exact reasons the ESRB was created to put off in the first place.
WTF is wrong with people nowadays (Score:3, Insightful)
The rating system is completely lame. My local news has more violence, sex and tobacco use.
how do they define (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:get a farking life, geez (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Try substituting for "game" the phrase "TV show", "movie", "evening news story", or "behavior learned from a parent".
Why, oh why, do people seem to single out gaming as the only violent influence on a child? You think a 12 year old has never seen gore until he plays GTA3? Watching the Detroit TV news in the morning, I see more violence than I do most of the evening playing video games. I'm guaranteed at least a murder a night on Law & Order on TNT, and a extra one on the new episode on NBC, not to mention SVU and Criminal Intent. Just recently, a kid killed his... cousin? sister? by emulating professional wrestling - shall we legislate that too?
At a certain point, a child needs a regulating influence in their life to point at the TV or game or movie and say "This is fiction. This is not real life, and this is not acceptable behavior", and then point at the news and say "This is what happens in real life when people die - families are shattered and people go to prison." My dad was always there, and his favorite line was "You know this isn't how the world works, right?" and so I don't go around killing people. For a guy in desktop support, that's a noteworthy accomplishment.
The burden shouldn't be on the pimply teenager selling the movie ticket or renting the video game - he's probably on the kid's side anyhow. We can't expect Corporate America to raise our kids, and if we do, we deserve everything we get and more. Letting a company decide what's appropriate for one's child, be it ABC, HBO, Blockbuster, the MPAA, the ESRB or anyone else, is shirking one's duty as a parent The burden needs to be on the parent to get involved with the child and what he's doing. Hang out when your kid is playing games. Ask him to explain what's going on. Watch TV with him, even for a couple minutes, just to know. Then decide whether or not you approve, and raise your child accordingly.
Re:Its a bad rating system. (Score:2, Insightful)
The MPAA owns the trademarks on PG, G, R, etc. To maintain those trademarks, they are legally obligated to *enforce* them, that is, take legal action against any other company that would use the same trademarks.
Why does the MPAA maintain these trademarks? Because otherwise, there would be nothing, legally, to stop a movie like Scary Movie from putting a huge "rated G" on the movie posted without *any* endorsement from the MPAA. If they try, the MPAA could sue them for trademark violation.
Some years back, I believe Marvel Comics tried to make use of the MPAA's rating system, and were sued by the MPAA for this very reason.