Parents Agree With ESRB Ratings 31
Gamespot reports that a study funded by the ESRB found that parents generally agree with the ESRB's ratings. From the article: "The study was conducted over 11 days in October, and included more than 400 parents. Each participant was shown footage from eight random games out of a pool of 80 titles rated by the ESRB within the last year. Each parent was asked to rate the game, then told what the actual rating was and asked to rate the rating as 'about right,' 'too strict,' or 'too lenient.'"
In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In other news... (Score:3)
This article is showing exactly the opposite. Parents are involving themselves in their kids' lives by monitoring the ESRB rating. Or do you think parents should decide whether the game is appropriate themselves? i.e., plunk down 50 bucks, bring it home, and spend 40 hours playing it through before letting junior get his grubby hands on it? The ESRB ratings are voluntary, an
Re:In other news... (Score:1)
That's exactly his point. Despite the fact that involved parents generaly agree with ESRB ratings and find them usefull, we still generaly only hear about the minority of kid/parent combos that get themselves in trouble and blame anyone and anything they can.
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
The problem isn't with the ESRB ratings, or the responsible parents. If it bleeds, it leads. Thus, video games don't figure into media reports until an M-rated game is found on some 13-year-old shooter's shelf.
And it doesn't matter if the inevitable lawsuit is won, lost, or dismissed by a clueful judge: The lawyers still get paid.
Where does it say that? (Score:2)
No, parents are being paid probably like $10 to watch a few clips of a video game and say whether the rating is right.
Nowhere does the article say, or even imply, that these parents (or any others) then actually pay attention to the ratings when buying games for their kids. Actually maybe these 400 parents will be more likely to, having participated in this experiment. But I know from experience with my own mother and
Biased? (Score:1)
It's hard to tell the content of a full game in one short sitting. Though I have to admit I am suprised that the surveyed parents "think the ratings are too strict another 5 percent of the time."
Re:Biased? (Score:1)
This approach somewhat mirrors the ESRB's actual ratings procedure, in which raters unaffiliated with the gaming industry are shown footage of "the most extreme content" from games and then asked to assign descriptors and a rating to the product.
So, yes I would say that they probably showed CJ getting his groove on, the little bit that actualy occured in the game, and beating cops and hookers galore.
Ratings not the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems mostly like people that the ratings are designed for, i.e. the ones that don't care to look into whether a game is appropriate for their kids or not, aren't looking at the ratings anyway.
I was talking to another parent about video games, and they were surprised by all the stuff that was in GTA. I asked them if they knew the game was rated M, and they said they didn't.
It seems to me that my kid looks at the ratings more than I do. He knows if he asks for a game that's rated M he's probably not going to get it.
Wonder how the parents rated with their kids... (Score:3, Interesting)
At any rate those are the very parents who've responded to this ESRB study. The point is that they're not tuned into what's in the games, so they're supposed to use the ratings as a shortcut.
This story is pretty telling. The "study" method they use is to show a parent a random selection of the "most extreme" moments from a given
Headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't a more accurate headline read "ESRB say parents agree with them"? Is anybody shocked by this? Seems to be as obvious as Microsoft saying that Windows is better than Linux. Also:
Isn't this entirely dependent upon what footage from the games is shown? And isn't that choice made by the ESRB? So can't they produce whatever conclusions they like? Violent game rated as suitable for children? Show the parents footage from a particularly mundane part of the game.
Re:Headline (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Headline (Score:2)
If anything, I've always thought that the ESRB errs on the side of caution. But at least they have detailed lists of what reasons the game is rated as it is.
But one would think that a voluntary ratings board, designed to avoid having the gov't take over that duty, would tend to be good about keeping itself honest.
Besides, what would be the point of lowballing ratings? Most video game buyers are adults buying for themselves, and there's no concept of 'nc-17 is the same as 'XXX' in people's minds, and t
Newsflash (Score:1)
Re:Newsflash (Score:1)
Re:Newsflash (Score:3, Insightful)
And I think you will find that most teens (at least that I knew) sexually experimented far less, and intoxicated themselves far less then they wanted to. Due to a combination of non-oblivious parents, laws, girls not experimenting with them, and a sense of responisbility.
Believe it or not, it is harder for a teen to get an R rated movie than a PG 13 one, and harder to get a beer than a coke. It is moving that way wi
Re:Newsflash (Score:2)
This is clearly the reason why we (Slashdotters) didn't experiment sexually when we were younger. Therefore, we need to figure out a way to prevent beer and drugs (and mature video games) from experimenting with the younge
Conker's Bad Fur Day (N64) (Score:3, Informative)
Every day (for months after it was released) parrents would come in and complain that they thought the game was appropriate for their 6-10 year old because of the 'cute' character; in many of these stores when a parent would come in and buy the game the sales people would even warn them that it was really not appropriate for younger children (hence the 'M' rating), and yet they still complained afterwords.
Now as I see it, it doesn't matter whether parents agree with the ratings (or not) the important thing is that parents actually inform themselves in order to make an informed decision. Being a videogame junkie myself, I have been asked often whether a game was appropriate for a given child; what I usually tell people is 'go to gamerankings.com, read a couple of reviews (they will give you an idea about what content and quality of the game), and check out the ESRB rating.' Do parents do it? For the most part no.
I recognize that parents are busy, and may not be interested in games, but if you want a game that they will enjoy (and at a level of content which is appropriate) then they have to do more than look at the games cover; the letter 'M' doesn't tell the whole story, neither does a fury character.
Re:Conker's Bad Fur Day (N64) (Score:2, Insightful)
The point here is that Jack Thompson and several California congresspeople have been hemming and hawing for the past few months that the ESRB isn't doing its job - basically claiming that, since the board is controlled by the industry, there is incentive for them to put more kid-friendly ratings on mature games. They even proposed creating a government committee to do its job instead, altho
Sure, they may agree with the ratings... (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt it. They'll still go after the game developers, even though it plainly says "M" on the box... when there's a simple solution: don't buy it for your kid if you think it's too violent. Just because it exists doesn't mean you need to buy it.
In short: Stop blaming others and start taking responsibility as a parent.
Re:Sure, they may agree with the ratings... (Score:1)
These are the same sort of people that support the War on Drugs. It's not about kids to them, it's about making sure their puritanical views get forced on other people.
Asked to rate the rating. (Score:1)
I belive the technical term is "meta-mod."