Parents 'ignore game age ratings' 571
Jim Hall writes "With all the fervor recently over the 'Hot Coffee' mod and the upcoming 'Bully' game, I found it interesting that no press time seems to have been given to this little gem from the BBC: Parents 'ignore game age ratings'. I think most of us agree that the games are already rated appropriate to their audience - GTA:SA was previously rated "M" (17 and up) in the US, before public outcry forced the ESRB to move it to "AO" (18 and up). However, as this article points out, parents are more concerned about children spending too many hours playing games, rather than about what type of title they were playing."
Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Parents are too divorced from what teenagers play," he said.
Most parents are too divorced from nearly all aspects of their children's lives because they are too wrapped up in their own and the lives of those they live vicariously through via the television.
As long as the television isn't telling them that the video games are bad and the politicians aren't doing "their job" and telling parents that the video games are bad then they must be just fine.
Remember, everyone wants the politicians living inside the little electrical box to tell them what to do. Anything else is too much added stress - unless they can place the blame on someone else.
I think it's about time (Score:4, Insightful)
The rating isn't some kind of magic shield that prevents your child from playing the game, parents - YOU have to use your discretionnary power(i.e. MONEY) to influence your child's gaming habits (i.e NOT BUY THE "M" GAMES).
We knew this (Score:3, Insightful)
Do stores restrict sales by age? (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, maybe the 18+ games should not be mixed in with the other games. Maybe they should be kept in an area where kids can't shop them with all the other titles. Like they keep 18+ magazines behind the counter. If a parent wants to buy it, they can ask for it.
Nobody to Blame But Themselves (Score:1, Insightful)
People are responsible for their own mistakes.
Children and 'adult content' in games. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're trying to get a child to turn out well-adjusted, which is more important... making sure the kid is never exposed to sex, or making sure he actually goes outside sometimes and makes friends and has a life?
All this says, I think, is that most people really do believe the latter. Media hype generally ignores this... but since when has the media cared about reality? Remember the West Nile Virus, which is really not much more dangerous than influenza? The 'sex bracelets' which most kids had never heard of before the TV was claiming they were all having middle school orgies? This isn't any different.
my take (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do stores restrict sales by age? (Score:3, Insightful)
A) porno is not the same as a video game.
B) that's up to the store to decide
Re:Flat Out (Score:3, Insightful)
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open manhole and die."
Re:Do stores restrict sales by age? (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't really work with alcohol and cigarettes. And these two are, for the moment, considered more dangerous than 18+ games.
HOLY CRAP! I didn't realize... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course parents don't pay attention to the game ratings. They're printed right on the box! in Letters, often Boldfaced, right there!
You'd have to actually read to learn what the rating is!
When's the last time you saw the masses pay attention to anything that has to be read?
As a correlary: How many of you went to see South Park, The movie in the theater? Now how many of you remember sitting within 20 feet of a bunch of little kids?
Exactly.
A) People piss and moan that there aren't enough warnings.
B) Then they ignore them so they can piss and moan about what they were warned about in the first place and demand bans.
C) Then when the thing gets banned, they complain about how the government is too intrusive.
[Almost forgot: D) Profit!]
one word: fucking people.
As a parent (Score:5, Insightful)
I am involved in what my kid plays, what he watches, who he hangs with.
I let him be exposed to more and more as his maturity level grew with him.
I showed him consequences for bad behavior.
I explained why bad was bad.
He's seventeen, and a great kid.
Not that I'm taking my hand off the switch just yet.
Confusing the issue (Score:3, Insightful)
B.
Re:I think it's about time (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's pathetic and quite sad, but just like like parental locks on television and internet, they aren't trying to "do" something about their problem. They want something done for them. On a relatively general level (i.e. not always the case but usually), those that propose bans/restrictions on games are personally offended, and those that support the former don't want to change things, they just want it removed completely so they don't have to worry about it at all.
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, there are a select group of parents that spoil their child and just cannot say no.
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is the reason why we still have politicians taking the stance that this stuff is bad for the children. In the collective mind of the older generation, video games are always for kids. Any rating system therefore exists inside that box -- In their minds, M isn't for adults, it's for mature children.
Personally, I think that parents ought to be able to decide for themselves whether their children are able to handle higher-rated content. Being discerning is what parenting is all about. But I'm not naive enough to think that's what's happening here.
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:5, Insightful)
The ratings exist for precisely the reason that parents have little interest in the games their children play. The rating labels exist so that a parent doesn't have to play the game or completely supervise to make a reasonable judgement about its appropriateness.
You have to know next to nothing to use a rating to your advantage. If little Johnny has trouble with graphic violence, the parent looks on the box and sees "graphic violence" in the little white rectangle and says "maybe next year, son".
Anything less is negligence, and in that case, the games aren't the issue.
There were only 37 parents who gave a hoot (Score:3, Insightful)
The rest of us simply did what we still do; decide what we are and are not willing to supply our children with on our own. Ratings are meaningless for this and I rather resent the implication that making up my own mind is somehow "wrong."
The ratings are just there to placate those few vocal twits who think they need a panel to make their decisions for them and believe they have the right to enforce that panel on others with more brains.
I am the only rating system that counts for my children. I'll screw 'em up as I see fit. Go screw up your own.
KFG
God I love the irony! (Score:3, Insightful)
Paying attention to the wrong thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The research showed that parents were more concerned about children spending too many hours playing games, rather than about what type of title they were playing.
Never mind the fact that some video games can be educational and good for you. Gentle Brain Exercises [gamespy.com] for the Nintendo DS comes to mind. Additionally some studies have shown video gaming can improve hand-eye coordination.
The older generation needs to realize that first of all, video games are no longer just for kids. The kids that were playing them back in the 80's have now grown up and have children of their own, but many of them are still playing video games. This means that there just might be games out there tailored for this more mature audiance.
And to a certain degree, sticking an 18-rating on a game made that title more desirable. "We called it Magic 18," said Mr Freund. "The 18+ label was seen as promoting the content, promising adult content rather then saying 'my parents will stop me playing this.'"
As has been shown with just about anything you put an age limit on (drinking, smoking, pornography), younger children will find this content more desirable simply for the fact that they're not allowed to have it. This might make them curious as to what about it makes the content not for them. In other cases the children will want to use the product to feel rebelious or more mature. Regardless of whether this idea of thinking is stupid or not doesn't stop it from happening.
You'd think that being young themselves at some point, the older generation would understand this phenomena and figure out a way to stop it, but obviously not. You could say that regulartory boards are designed for this, but they've failed miserably as far as I'm concerned. So rather than take direct action, people for the most part seem more interested in abdicating their parental responsiblity to government legislation.
Of course the people who need to understand this most are the people who don't read slashdot. The tech savvy crowd here is generally well aware of modern video games and the content they can contain, both good and bad.
Ironically, most people knew that games had age ratings, the study by the Swiss research firm Modulum showed.
Doh! So they actually do know that games can contain really bad content.
However, parents were still letting their children play 18-rated games.
Double Doh!
To quote the parent, "Most parents are too divorced from nearly all aspects of their children's lives." According to the article it would seem that more people than expected know about what their kids are playing, but just don't give a shit about it. So when society goes to hell because the children of today, just remember it's your fault for doing a shitty job of raising them and have no one else to blame but yourselves.
Well of course. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Flat Out (Score:5, Insightful)
To stop the influx of stupidity (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Flat Out (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course not. But a "shock value" gimmick is so much easier to make than, you know, actual good gameplay.
Re:Do stores restrict sales by age? (Score:4, Insightful)
The primary problem is that the parents purchase the games for their kids without any concern about what might be within.
After all, video games are for kids, right?
Re:I think it's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Too true. Remember the V chip? That was a huge fricken deal that parents could block out certain kinds of programming that they didn't want their kids to see. Its a mandated part of every TV manufactured for the last several years. Just about every TV show has ratings and shows them as often as after each commerical break.
With all of this in place, people STILL complain about whats being shown on tv and the same lame "think of the children" argument.
As reasonable as these advocates try to appear, the fact that they're not appeased after all of these ratings systems are instituted is proof positive that nothing short of eradicating objectionable material will please them.
Re:Parents have to be called on it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, no, the idea that such material could harm children is unfathomable to me.
Why does the violence-in-media debate always start with a preordained conclusion and work backwards from it? Where is the supposed wave of game-fueled juvenile crime? If you look at the numbers, at least in the US, it ain't happening.
Somebody's premises are wrong.
Re:We knew this (Score:3, Insightful)
You know rather little about kids, do you?
Trying to tell kids stuff won't work. Telling them does. If they do brake the rules, a suitable (non physical) punishment should be issued, like grounding them with no computer and/or TV access.
Naturally, good behaviour should be rewarded as well.
But assuming you can't control a teenager to a reasonable degree is simply weak. Of course teens will disobey you from time to time, but that's a far cry from letting them do whatever they want.
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:2, Insightful)
Ratings Aren't the Only Thing Parents Ignore (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, I have a boy (9) and a girl (5). The boy is the main video game player and game selector, and he knows that games have to be rated E (everyone) in order for him to play it. There are exceptions to this, but they are on a case-by-case basis and they are extremely rare. He might have been allowed to play a T (teen) game once or twice.
Of course, I'm the exception. I'm one of those fathers who pays attention to what his children are doing and I don't use video games as a babysitter. OK, in the spirit of full disclosure, maybe I do just a little bit, as I know that the kids will be entertained while playing games and watching TV. But I'm never far away and I always know what they're watching and playing. Heck, I've turned into such a prude that I'm considering banning Nickelodeon and the Disney channel (the latter having turned into nothing but an advertising vehicle for Disney properties).
My point is that it's no surprise that parents don't pay attention to ratings, since so many of them don't even pay attention to their children. The decline of the quality of the family is THE biggest issue that we face as a nation and it's very often the answer to other national issues that we face.
RP
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians take this line because it's a tried-and-true battle cry. Both "for the children" and "for the greater good" have worked for thousands of years; just ask Socrates.
Max
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm 24, with no kids, but I'd always considered "comic books" to be kids' stuff. This year I finally opened my mind and checked out some of the classic graphic novels like V for Vendetta. No way is that stuff at a kid's level; I think most kids would completely miss at least 50% of what Moore was saying there, and the violence level was disturbingly high in that, as well as, say, something like The Watchmen or Hellblazer. Again, not something I'd imagine most parents would want their kids to be steeped in. GTA sounds like it's at about that level.
With that said, I also think most parents are complete morons when it comes to deciding what their kids should/shouldn't be allowed to do, and also morons for blaming anyone but themselves if they aren't keeping track of their kids and have no idea what they're up to.
Re:As a parent (Score:4, Insightful)
Moreover, a responsible parent might also consider the cost to the child of being the only kid not allowed to play Beastkill VII. ('Consider' here means 'recognize and assess'...)
It isn't blame (Score:5, Insightful)
They chose to work two jobs, they chose to have kids, and they choose not to supervise them properly. With freedom comes responsibility.
They could work less (and yes do with less money) and supervise their kids.
They could have not had kids.
My wife and I have decided that when we have kids we will have to make certain sacrifices to our personal lives and careers and standard of living to raise them properly. This is one of the tradeoffs of having kids.
I know some other people who think a child is slightly more responsiblity than a puppy and that it shouldn't really impact your life too much.
Re:We knew this (Score:4, Insightful)
And they'd probably be right, since no one has ever managed to present a single solitary shred of empirical evidence pointing to a causal link between behavior in a computer game and behavior in real life. Can't blame the parents for ignoring the tiresome shrieking and wailing of the bullshit morality-mongers for once.
Max
'Bad Parents' (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I think it's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
> these ratings systems are instituted is proof positive that nothing short of eradicating
> objectionable material will please them.
Why do you think that that will please them? They will just find something else to hate/complain about. At one time Rock and Roll was the end of civilisation. Before that it was women voting.
jfs
Re:We knew this (Score:2, Insightful)
What's wrong with a physical punishment? A spanking is needed every now and then.
Be firm, but reasonable, and your kid will listen to you and respect you.
Re:It isn't blame (Score:3, Insightful)
I often wonder how my father, a factory worker, could solely support a family of four when I was growing up -- and we were reasonably well off. (cue jokes about secret drug trafficking job)
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:5, Insightful)
I still thing that the rating system needs to be re-evaluated. First of all, they need a distinction between violence and illegal activity. Fighting to defend the Earth is different from murdering innocent bystanders. There are some games that are designed specifically for a perverse pleasure in being a monstrous villain. In AvsP, it's one thing to kill the marines who are shooting at you, it's another thing to kill the scientists who're begging for mercy - but to the ESRB it's the same.
Secondly, they need to distingish game content from game data. There are various good technical reasons to include clandestine data within a game, such as for regionalization, physical needs (cloth modelling could one day have nude models under clothes), or laziness (Chex Quest was a kid's game based on the Doom engine that still had all the nasty doom graphics in unused parts of the Wad file). This needs to be clearly outlined, and possibly marked on the box, same as if a game can have adult content when played online as opposed to at home.
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:3, Insightful)
The only kids that are "affected" by video games are the ones that can't tell fantasy from reality, which most kids over 10 can do.
Re:We knew this (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Assuming that you should "control" a teenager is disgusting. Unless you've fucked up badly as a parent, you should be able to talk to your kids about games, movies, drugs, sex, and whatever else so that they know what's garbage and what's not. Hiding things from teenagers is just stupid. Let them play GTA. If you've done your job, they should know that beating up hookers is a sick kind of fantasy.
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't even object to time out and other such punishments, but they MUST be applied. Threats must be acted on and it must be consistent. The problem I see with most parents who are anti-spanking is that they tend infact to be anti-punishment.
Several of my cousins are hitting their upper teens and are just now starting to become managable. Moral of the story: Parents control what the kids eat. Parents control what the kids do. Parents control what the kids watch. Allowing for unknown activities at friends homes, etc, the power is there, parents today are afraid to excercise it for fear of being at odds with the trendy and soft parenting techniques that are making it so hard to raise kids.
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:3, Insightful)
1) When I was a kid I could get to watch X rated movies if I wanted.
2) I don't believe _most_ kids are affected by sex or violence in films and games any more than they are by violence in cartoons. I have watched loads of kids grow up, not just my own: some are fragile and need protecting, but not many. Anyway, TV news is pretty horrific - blown up people and the like.
3) The concept of censorship lacks credibility in the UK. For years, the person in charge of the British Board of Film Censors was Legally registered blind In the 1950's there was a famous obscenity trial "Lady Chatterly's Lover" where the prosecution said "would you let your wife or servants read this book" - the court fell over laughing, and the trial was abandoned. I am pretty sure there has been no sucessful prosecution for obscenity in the media since. We laugh at your "wardrobe malfunctions" and think you Americans are all wimps.
4) Terrorism and abduction are more serious threats than video games. Seriously, your kid is not likely to suffer death or injury from watching X-rated stuff. He/she might from playing football or cricket. I have seen children suffer serious injury playing in the park. When my parents were kids, they were machingunned and bombed by the Germans.Many parents in London come from counties where people are being killed on a daily basis (I have neighbours from Israel, Iraq, Somalia, and Sudan) There is a definite "get a life" factor here.
Very few parents are "sitting in front of the TV while their children play" in the UK - owing to our tax structure, having children pretty much guarantees poverty (50% of families in London with children live below the poverty line - and this often does mean going without meals, not just going without designer clothes). Parents are struggling to make ends meet, not just single parents. Parents are petty grateful that GTA will occupy their kids for days on end, unlike a night out at the cinema, where the money is gone in a single night's entertainment. Especially as one kid's copy entertains 4 or more kids for several days! Many want to be more involved in their children's lives, but find the conflict with the struggle for survival is a serious problem.
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:2, Insightful)
You know, like with ciggarrets, Imagine if someone goes to a store with his boy, then the boy asks his father to buy certain box of cigarretes... is that allowed? and of course we need more "media" saying "remember, buying Games which are innapropiate for your children IS bad" of course, game companies wont like that very much...
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:2, Insightful)
It is allowed actually (at least in NY, the state where I live). Parents giving cigarettes to their children is the only legal way for a minor to have cigarettes, but it is legal. Laws restricting cigarettes have to do with their sale, not their possession.
Ratings can be helpful, but aren't law. (Score:2, Insightful)
Likewise, video game ratings are a similar situation. Nothing says Rockstar has to rate GTA. They can release it unrated if they want. But many game chains will refuse to stock it then.
As for me? I think they're helpful. I have a 10-year old stepson, and I'm a liberal proponent of free speech. But, does that mean I want my stepson watching porn or playing cop-killer video games at his age? No. While media may not have a MAJOR impact on his decisions, I know that it does have SOME impact. I DON'T want him desensitized to violence. I DON'T want him thinking unprotected sex is as okay as kissing. If he chooses to have sex before he's married (even if when in high school,) I just want to make sure he understands what he's doing, and takes precautions.
Oh, and I'm not an 'outlaw all guns' liberal, either. I have taken my stepson shooting multiple times. In controlled ranges, with proper safety procedures. He hasn't yet shot a firearm, just BB and air guns. I want to make sure he fully understands that a gun can kill instantly, and that it's not a toy, before he holds one. That means I don't want him watching movies or playing video games that portray 'realistic' violence in a glorifying way. I've let him watch 'Saving Private Ryan', and 'Schindler's List', but I don't even like him watching 'Speed'.
As such, I use game ratings as a guide. If it's rated 'T', I look to see if the offending material is 'realistic'. If so, I won't buy it. If it's cartooney (Star Wars,) then probably. If it's M, not a chance. I recently had an acquaintance who also has a 10 year old son remark that now that the bad material was removed from GTA, they'd buy it for their 8 year old son! I made sure to let her know that the only bad material that was removed was the material that wasn't really officially there anyway. It's still just as violent as it was before.
(I always wondered why 'liberals' were anti-gun and pro-sex, while 'conservatives' are anti-sex, but pro-gun... Wouldn't you rather have your kid making more kids than killing other kids?)
Most of you are idiots. (Score:5, Insightful)
And for those of you that whine about parents not looking at the Rating...Have you thought that maybe a huge number of them understand that ratings bodies are designed for the lowest common denominator. Being 36, and having the 20/20 hindsight of over 20 years, I can say with confidence that by somewhere between 10 and 13 there was absolutly no content that I was not able to deal with.
It is popular today to retard our children. Historically 13 was a full adult. These "Children" built nations, ruled nations, fought wars, married, had children, ran farms and businesses. Maybe your genetic line has degraded into mush in the last 100 years, but mine has not.
And before anyone spouts off about how 'we live in more complicated times', I will call BS on that. We live in the safest, easiest, most gentle time in history. Not once have I ever had to fear that the hords were coming to rape our women and steal our crops because the weather was good. I've never had worry that me and my family were going to die because we had a bad season for our crops. (except during a brief period during a bathroom remodel) I have always had indoor plumbing, and all I had to do to get rid of my shit was to pull a little handle. The fact is, even if you have no job, and are homeless, SOMEONE will feed you. I know this is the case here in the US, and I have good reason to believe that it applies to any country that has wide distribution of video game systems.
Calling parents that don't follow the ratings 'bad' is just plain hypocritical. If anything that is in any game currently availible is going to damage your child, it is already too late, and you have already failed as a parent.
OMG (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow.
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't think they can do that anymore, though.
MOD PARENT UP - THIS ONE SHOULD GO TO 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:3, Insightful)
But hey, I'm sure you could fabricate any sort of rationale that makes your point for you.
I never liked rap very much, but I thought GTA:SA was a lot of fun.
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently the idea of human beings having sex is more repugnant than the idea of human beings knifing, shooting, and driving cars over people.
FCC, do me a favor and fuck off (Score:3, Insightful)
No, if a parent wants to buy their kid a video game, the parent should be allowed to. Will some parents buy out of stupidity? Sure. On the other hand, I don't need to be told that my sixteen year old boy can't play Alien Vs Predator because uncle same as deemed it too graphic for his fragile little mind until he is a year older.
Government officials are completely stupid and ignorant when it comes to regulating information content. The entire Janet Jackson nonsense proved this rather conclusively. My kid can watch the news that shows real people dying, or he can watch dramatizations of humans being raped and murdered, but the second we see a nipple for half of a second the world ends? Bah, talk about a bunch of completely worthless and incompetent. They already have their fluffy union contracts, guaranteed life time pay, and the complete inability to be fired. They don't need power over information too.
Show me proof that video games are even a tiny fraction as dangerous as cigarettes and that playing them takes 30 years off your life, and you have an argument. Until that day though, the government can stay the bloody fuck out of my life on this issue.
Sock! Horror! (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the world coming to?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Their lives are too stressful to pay attention! (Score:2, Insightful)
The Nanny State benefits neither the parents nor the children. It cripples people by providing for them what they should provide for themselves. Perpetuating a need for more laws.
Let's repeal the stupid laws to force most parents to be more responsible. Those children harmed by poor parenting will probably be less than those children harmed by poor laws.