Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Government Entertainment Politics

This Year's MediaWise Videogame Report Card 43

Posted by Zonk from the you-all-get-an-e-for-effort dept.
Mercury News has the complete, unedited release of this year's MediaWise videogame report card. The bottom line of the release is that "Parents Can No Longer Ignore Their Children's Video Game Habits". Citing evidence that games are responsible for increased aggression and poor health, the report urges parents to take a more active role in their children's lives, and moderate their game usage. In many other areas of the report (which is typically quite negative) high marks were handed out. Gamespot has a synopsis of the findings. From that article: "Specialty game retailers were given an 'F' for allowing anyone to purchase titles rated M for Mature, despite whatever store policy might have been in place. Also, in a category that wasn't present in last year's report, the NIMF gave an 'incomplete' grade to Parental Involvement for the year. 'As the world of video games continues to evolve, parents are falling behind,' the group said in a statement. 'As we found last year, this year's parental survey uncovered an alarming gap between what kids say about the role of video games in their lives and what parents are willing to admit.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

This Year's MediaWise Videogame Report Card More

This Year's MediaWise Videogame Report Card

Comments Filter:
  • We make sure of it by heaping tons of chores on them....

    No need to monitor what video games they buy.
    • I'm sure they'll provide an excellent rest home for you and your spouse when they grow up ;)
      • Actually he has it right if you don't keep your children busy with chores and school work they will have plenty of time to find their way into other things less beneficial to their future.
      • Wow, someone is bitter that they had to vacuum the living room 3 days of the week.

  • *sigh* (Score:3, Funny)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @08:30AM (#17047840)
    Does anyoe else question the validity of a study that dumbs down it's arguements to a lettered scale, using novelty instead of oh, I dunno, facts, to get their point across.

    They would've done better to say "Ladies and Gentlemen, our Video Game Alert Scale has now been raised to burnt sienna..."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Aladrin ( 926209 )
      No, I think instead they were trying to reach the idiot parents that they rated 'incomplete' because they won't pay attention to what their children are doing. It's still very unlikely to have any effect, I admit, but I think that was the aim.
      • "Incomplete" really points to the idea that they have an agenda that doesn't include making parents aware. Never mind even working in retail, if you just walk into a retail store any more, it's incredibly obvious that parents tend to give their kids whatever they want, either to shut them up, or because they have no control over their own children. Parents, in any number of areas, should be getting straight up F's, but corporate watchdog groups don't really care about changing the parents, they want to ch

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Aladrin ( 926209 )
          I have to laugh because just yesterday, while I was chatting with the clerk about Wii games at EB, there was a kid asked him about a game... The Godfather. The response was 'It's like GTA. I know you aren't allowed to play that. At least, I don't think so. If you are, I need to have a talk with your mother.' The guy obviously knew the kid (about 8) and his mother. The kid stared in response, and I think he was just about to tell him he IS allowed to play GTA. But then the clerk said 'But it's a much
    • Don't take it too seriously. It's a fairly amusing way to promote their views, and helps get their message out. Not that I agree with them but I applaud their methods.
    • It's pretty apparent they don't pay attention to any of the other factual studies that have been presented. Giving them the results in a format they can understand (even if the format is corrupt) could be beneficial to getting the point across.

  • Who now? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 4solarisinfo ( 941037 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @08:41AM (#17047978)
    If TV can't raise America's kids, and now Videogames can't either, who is left?

  • It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mahoneyj ( 456369 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @08:53AM (#17048118)
    All I can say is it's about time the parents are being talked about here. I'm sick of everyone thinking the government should regulate what kids can and can't play (they do that with other things too, like abortion, and it's sickening). It's the job of the parents to raise their own children. Make sure the parents are informed and the games have the proper labels so everyone knows what the content is (which the game makers are doing). Then tell and let the parents do their job.
    • All I can say is it's about time the parents are being talked about here. I'm sick of everyone thinking the government should regulate what kids can and can't play (they do that with other things too, like abortion, and it's sickening). It's the job of the parents to raise their own children. Make sure the parents are informed and the games have the proper labels so everyone knows what the content is (which the game makers are doing). Then tell and let the parents do their job.

      I think its fair to argue that

      • Re:It's about time (Score:4, Interesting)

        by twistedsymphony ( 956982 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @11:24AM (#17050350) Homepage
        I completely agree, though I think it's the ESA who needs to keep retailers in line, not the government.

        If GameStop is caught selling an M rated game to someone under the posted age then they should pull all their content from that store for some pre-determined lenght of time.

        If they did it on a store by store basis, (as in Gamestop #156, instead of all Gamestops globally) I guarantee they'd start respecting the ESRB ratings. This is essentially how the movie industry works. The Government doesn't regulate it but they have secret underage ticket buyers and if they get through... the studios pull their films from that theater.
    • I completely agree with you. The problem is, most parents ... are not. Oh, and please don't bring abortion into this issue. That almost makes your insightful turn into a flamebait.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SirSlud ( 67381 )
      If I had mod points, you'd be looking at a -1 for yet another useless, invalid, irrelevant 'damn government regulation' whine. The government should regulate these things because the fact of the matter is some parents *don't* give a shit about their kids and the government should and tries, and to varying degrees of success, DOES, provide a safety net to children (and other exploited citizens) where their parents or their community fails them.

      People like you miss the point; the 'regulations' are not meant t
      • People like you miss the point; the 'regulations' are not meant to absolve parents of their responsibility, and they don't excuse parental indifference or outright failure of responsibility, but are meant to provide a decent fallback for children who are failed by their parents.

        You know, I disagree with you, but I must say this has to be one of the first pro-video-game-regulation arguments I've seen on Slashdot or anywhere else that is more than A) both sides spouting their already-stated "facts", B) "w
      • I tend to agree with you. Where the parents fail their children, it is sometimes proper for the government to pick up the slack. This is an unusual instance, however. The point has been raised previously that the government can not simply create a law that defers to the ratings of the ESRB. (I don't recall the exact terminology of the argument but the gist of it was that doing so would place the power of law into a non-government agency.) Although I find the lack of parental involvement upsetting, I als

      • The government should regulate these things because the fact of the matter is some parents *don't* give a shit about their kids and the government should and tries, and to varying degrees of success, DOES, provide a safety net to children (and other exploited citizens) where their parents or their community fails them.

        That's a reasonable argument, but it applies equally to movies, which aren't regulated. Therefore, if we should regulate games with laws, then so should we regulate movies. Fair is fair.

  • heh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by moheezy ( 1032844 )
    What do you know... The best substitute for old fashioned parenting is... old fashioned parenting.

  • What???? (Score:3, Funny)

    by teflaime ( 738532 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @08:57AM (#17048168)
    They want parents to take an interest in their children's lives, and take responsibility for PARENTING??????? How dare they? That's what television and video games are supposed to be for! Man, the people who want our schools to do their parenting are going to have a field day going after this study!

  • This just in... (Score:3, Funny)

    by iainl ( 136759 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @09:00AM (#17048210)
    The National Institute For Saying Modern Society Is EVIL!!! EVIL I TELL YOU, BURRRN THEM ALLLLL!!!!! (erm, sorry) says that videogames are as evil, bad and wrong as they said last year.

    Shockingly, the rest of the world still continues about its business, igoring the weirdos on the street corner.

  • Duh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ZWarrior ( 194861 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @09:03AM (#17048232) Homepage
    Look, this isn't really anything different from the past few years. "The games are violent and kids are getting violent because of it" and "Parents are failing to monitor the kids play"... hmm could there be a link? Perhaps the problem isn't about the violence of the game, but rather a failure of parents to manage the kids time playing the games.

    I applaud the earlier poster who stated that his kids don't have time for games because they keep them busy with chores, etc. I believe kids should be able to play but their time should be moderated and limited.

        I have several friends that use games as a carrot for good behaviour. If the kids are behaving, doing their chores, and getting good reports from school etc, then they get a hour or two credited to their "playtime bank". The kids have learned that failing to do as expected will cost them the credit and maybe cost them some time they have stored up. These same kids are learning to save up time so that they can go with dad to LAN parties and play, or spend a little more time one night playing that favourite game. But they are still limited in the amount of time they can play.

    The games they play are checked out by the parents before the kids even get to play them. It helps that their father is a gamer as well, but at least he is taking the initiative to monitor what his kids are doing. I wonder if a large portion of the problem comes from the way many of our generation was raised. Our parents would put a tape in the VCR and let the boob tube babysit us. As we grew up we began to trust the screen to be friendly and so if the game is on a square glowing screen it must be OK, and we don't have to be engaged with our kids at all. Just feed them, send them to school and take them to sports.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ShawnMcCool42 ( 557138 )
      Or maybe it has less to do with the video games at ALL, and more to do with lack of parental involvement in the children's lives..
  • Parents should be involved in their children's lives already. You can't say that Video Games do have impact in anyone's life, that is what parents are for in the case of children. They define what they think is best for their child and implement it. There are many reasons why things happen and to say that Video Games is the direct cause it stupid. Parents should get off their collective asses and play some games with the children both video and rec games.

    With the Wii you can do both, Tennis anyone. \ha

  • oh wow (Score:4, Funny)

    by SydBarrett ( 65592 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @09:23AM (#17048532)
    "The National Institute on Media and the Family, the nation's leading resource on the effects of media and video games on children..."

    Yeah, I remember the last few reports they put out:

    Seasame Street: This Whole Snuffleupagus Thing Really Pisses Off Kids

    Mortal Kombat: DUDE TURNED INTO A FUCKING TIGER AND BIT THE GUYS HEAD OFF

    3DO: Your Kids Will Fucking Hate You And Kill You In Your Sleep If You Buy This Thing

    Capital Letters: Are Totally Awesome

  • Citing evidence that games are responsible for increased aggression and poor health

    Isn't this a self solvign problem?
    Ok, so they become violent, but at the same time the get fat and lazy, thus unable to act out on these violent impulses!

    I am a horrible person.

  • Where is the slashdot "bias" when you need it? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 0xdeadbeef ( 28836 ) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @09:43AM (#17048812) Homepage Journal
    Why is a group of whiners with no authority and no credibility with actual gamers given serious attention by Slashdot, much less Gamespot? Just because some front group calls themselves the "National Institute on X" does not make them an expert on X. Just because they have the ear of a senator does not mean they deserve respect.

    Since they are a threat, their "report" deserves our attention, but reporting this as anything other than propoganda is playing directly into their hands. Would you give the same credulity to the press releases of creationists or animal rights activitsts? Why is their report reproduced without much analysis, criticism, and outright ridicule?

    We win this battle by marginalizing our opponents, by chipping away the edifice on which they construct their credibility in public opinion. Jack Thompson the bafoon is their representative, not a faceless dispassionate scientific-sounding interest group.
  • I love how they all blame retailers and such for letting the kids have the games... but they never give the parents a grade for not parenting! I would give parents a F for not doing their job, and leaving the game company's to take the governments crap!
  • As for health, I was breaking a sweat playing Wii tennis the other day. My body was sore the next day from too much Wii bowling and tennis combined. I'm pretty sure that's helping, not hurting my health, even with the minor pain.

    As for aggression, I could see some games that could provoke that, but also ones that allow you to let your aggression out in the game, instead of on others.
    • I'm sorry, but this "Playing the Wii is EXERCISE" meme really needs to die a painful death. I've played the Wii, I love it, I think the console is great -- but claiming that it equates to any sort of meaningful physical activity is laughable at best. If playing tennis on the Wii is making you sore, you should probably consider a REAL exercise program that doesn't involve video games.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Kuvter ( 882697 )
        Exercise in the way we're arguing about is physical exertion. What is your definition of exercising that which my physical excretion playing the Wii doesn't match it? Please answer this I'm not just being facetious.

        To further my point context also plays a role. Swinging the Wii mote around is exercise compared to sitting in a chair and mashing buttons. And it seems meaningful enough to replace sitting down with standing and swinging, resulting in breaking a sweat. Secondly if I'm breaking a sweat for ANY
  • I found their statistics to be interesting:

    The group surveyed 1,430 third, fourth, and fifth-grade children and their parents and found that the two groups' responses to restricting gaming varied widely. For instance, while 1 percent of parents said they never helped decide what games to buy or rent, 25 percent of children said the parents didn't get involved in those decisions. Although more than 60 percent of parents said they had rules about how long their kids can spend playing games, only 36 percent of children said their gameplay was time restricted. The group attributed the disparity in responses to "parental optimism."

    One read, the one NIMF took, is that the parents are "optimistic" about their involvement, which is a nice way of saying they lied on the survey. However, I think the more intereesting, and possibly more accurate conclusion that can be drawn from those number is that 9 to 11 year olds can't reliably determine the actions of their parents.

    The child might not percieve that the parent is involved in the decision of what games to buy, because the child picked the g

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close