Game Content Ratings Not Always To Be Trusted?

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.

Re:newsflash

[Anaxagor]

The warnings on videogames are not meant for parents to keep children confined by having them not purchase such games

At least in this country that's not true, our Office of Film and Literature Classification intends the warnings to be used proactively by parents:

From OFLC: [oflc.gov.au]

"Consumer advice helps you decide what you and your family view and play. If you do not like your children to hear swear words then check for consumer advice that refers to coarse language. Perhaps you do not like your children to watch movies that have references to sex or sex scenes. The consumer advice may help you choose films that do not have sexual references or sex scenes."

I have a ten year old son, and I keep an eye on what he sees and hears. But not based on the warnings, they're quite vague and downright misleading at times. I take an interest in the things he does, I play console games with him, I watch movies with him, and we don't have a problem. He has an instinctive understanding of what he is allowed to watch, and what he's not, and he respects that, while I respect his right to access content marked 15+ (like some games) if the content is within the guidelines we have mutually agreed upon.

Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, but it's sure as hell better than the way my father tried to impose censorship on me. I wasn't even allowed to watch Doctor Who until I was 15 years old!!!!!!!!

Friggin' hillbillies.

get a farking life, geez

[Ender Ryan]

This is total horsedung. Isn't it being extremely nitpicky to complain that a game rated "T" contains the use of tobacco or alcohol? And what passes as "sexual content" with these obsessively sheltering freaks?

And violence in "E" rated games? Are we talking "Mario"-esque violence, or something that really deserves mention?

Bah, give me a break!

Re:get a farking life, geez

[Derkec]

I was stepping out of the room when the Today show started covering this story this morning. They showed a clip of what appeared to be a Final Fantasy type game. The "outrageous" teaser they gave us before cutting to commercial was a cut scene of a woman's face as she's taking a shower, the view shifts up to the shower head as the shower is turned off, then (it what might be a differant cut scene spliced for TV) we see her in a tank top and panties. It wasn't over the top, but it was definately a shout out to hormonal 14 year olds.
It might be surprising for some parents here in prudish America who wouldn't expect that from a game rated "T". On the other hand, you can turn on the network broadcasters on TV and see shows like Dog Eat Dog where they get women (and men) in skimpy swimsuits to perform athletic challenges while getting sprayed with water.

Re:What's the point?

[sckeener]

It's sad.

We live in an age where tech is reducing the time it takes us to do tasks.

In other ages people had no time because life was harder. Now we have no time because we want to put ourselves before our kids.

And before anyone mods me down, you don't have to work 12 hour days any more. Developed countries have labor laws.

Spend time with your kids.

My sister-in-law doesn't. She acts like a peer with her child instead of the parent. During Christmas it was discovered that my niece stole her mother's s3x toys to play with them. She's 12 and failing school. She's not dumb, but she is very ignorant. She is a bully and the sort of person I would have disliked at her age. There are no consistant rules in her life because every new man in her mother's life is making the rules which are all different from the previous men. She hates staying at my house because the rules are firm and she can't wiggle out of them. Oh and did I mention she weighs 194 pounds. Her mother doesn't want the family to eat healthy because the other kids don't have a weight problem...the other kids are under 7...they've got energy to burn.

Getting back to the main topic of video games and ratings, My niece can tell me all the wonders of GTA3 and Vice City. Wasn't there a previous /. article about how mature titles end up in the hands of those under 17 with little difficulty?

The Problem with a Games Rating System

[NedR]

See, the problem with trying to evaluate/rate all of the content in a game is that, in the average game, there's too much, and it would take far too long to come up with a completely accurate rating. Unlike, with say, movies, every gameplay experience can be different, depending on the actions of the player, and not only is playing the whole game through once generally time consuming, but playing it through multiple times with an eye for every single easter egg, cheat code, and any other possible variable would take a long, long, time. For an example, look at the new Goldeneye level that was just recently discovered. Was the content from that level evaluated when the game was rated? No, I don't think so. Would it have made that huge an impact on the rating? Again, probably not. A rough approximation is pretty much the best we can hope for here, and it seems to have worked out pretty well so far. After all, ratings that involve "sexual content" are extremely subjective.

Wipeout is mature?

[ArmorFiend]

Yeah.
Um, "Wipeout" for original playstation was rated "Mature". I just don't think kids should have to look at cars going around an oval track. It could warp their fragile little minds.

(Ok, there technically were weapons, but they only slowed, they didn't kill).

Oh, and the color pallette was grey and edgy. Definately don't want your kids to see that.

Re:What's the point?

[couch_potato]

>My niece can tell me all the wonders of GTA3 and Vice City.

You want to see a cute kid, look at my fiance's nephew... he's 5 years old, and the other day he was in the car with me when we drove past two police officers who had somoene pulled over on the side of the road. He said, "We should put a bomb in between those cop cars!" Where does a five-year-old get that sort of idea?? Did I mention that his parents use a PS2 as his babysitter (even when they're around and could actually be interacting with him), and that Vice City is his favorite game? I hate to think what kind of weirdo he's going to be when he grows up...