@ Jabrwock

Online games yes but its more Online than gaming. Are they going to try to outlaw the internet? Games in themselves are neutral in that regards. Pedo's exist in many forms.

Games that teach math skills, spelling/typing (could have used one of those myself), color perception, reflexes and the like are helpful (and used) in that regard they could well claim that playing "violent" games makes one better prepared for violence IRL.

This is a highly well-thought view point of the world. Protection is good yes, but if you dont let them learn to protect themselves theyll never be self-sufficient and be able to survive on their own. All of the violence and perversion of the world is bad yes, but thats no reason to completely bar it from their lives. Some things should be kept 'til a certain age secret, but to completely shelter a child from the reality of the real world will only hurt them more than letting them see it for themselves when the parent can help teach them what it is and how it should be treated. So, in essence, Bravo Tanya.

Actually, I don't think kids should be playing Conker, it's a little on the nasty side and probably DOES deserve an M rating and... oh wait, it's a game about a disc on a string? Oh... oh, well never mind then.

What's one more test going to do for violent games?

@retrogamer88

On the TV it's known as Sky News, in the Papers they're known as The Daily Mail.

As you may have guessed, they're both full of shit.

@Austin Lewis

She's one of ours, not one of yours. Therefore, we are obliged to listen to her, and it seems like she's on our side.. Yeah, i'm scared too..

Interesting. Let's see where this goes.

Speaking of protecting our children, I already have a "baby helmet" on order. Too much?

Luke J J,
Depends on where you intend to use it.

There have been several TV shows over the years of people overdoing it with protecting their kids in home with outrageous precautions.

But, when I was able to see better when my son was only a couple of years old, I did put a baby helmet on him when I put him in the baby seat on my bicycle. Sometimes, people think reasonable precautions are over doing it. Now, if I had installed rollbars on the bicycle or at least the babyseat...

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

@WarOtter

Is death okay?

"PAE-dophiles"

simple common sense.

i mean, people do the same thing when it comes to illnesses. if you never allow your kids to get sick, they'll be worse off when they finally do catch something. that's the whole concept behind parents sending their children to play with kids who have the chicken pox: have them go through it now while it isn't deadly.

games can (not necessarily that they do) be a teaching tool for morality and complex issues, but it is up to the parent to contextualize everything for the child so they actually learn the lessons.

I am wondering what protecting children from online pedophiles (which is a good thing imo) has to do with gaming, violent or no.

@Icehawk

I am wondering what protecting children from online pedophiles (which is a good thing imo) has to do with gaming, violent or no.

Well, as with any online communication, online gaming *does* provide a window for pedophiles to get in touch with their future victims. Just something to be aware of. Be chat-smart. It's fine to give out A/S, just leave out the L... or keep it vague.

It sounds though, like she's talking about how we shield kids so much, that when they actually get into danger, they don't know it, or don't know how to deal with it, because we've pretty much conditioned them to think the whole world is a big fluffy land full of gumdrop princes, where no-one is ever bad. So when a kid gets asked personal info in online games, it doesn't occur to them that it could be a greasy perv old enough to be their father.

My niece is like that. We don't want to scare her, but make her smart about communicating. But she firmly believes the world is a happy place, and only her fellow teenagers go into chat rooms. And they only lie about themselves to hide their insecurities, not because of any devious intentions...

I must have been about the only Brit in the world who didn't even know they were playing, nor did I really care...

@Icehawk

The study is into games AND the internet.

As noted by GP this press snippet has no direct bearing on games, other than it given an insight into the likely tone of the final report which will deal with games.

Here's the funny thing: This isn't unprecedented. We just tend not to hear about the research that contradicts the legislators who ordered it up.

Consider Dwyer & Stockbridge's (1999) account of how the Australian parliament decided to commission some studies that were supposed to support its decision to regulate games. However, the research "was not used, presumably because it did not support the assumptions of necessary negative effects and the research findings contradicted the assumptions on which the legislation was based – particularly parental incompetence and level of concern about the media, including games" (p. 238).

We may yet see a reasonable study come out of all of this, which would be grand. But that's not to say it will affect how politicians' decisions are made.

Somehow, for some reason, I don't think the internet really should be studied. There's a reason why the ESRB marks all games with an online mode with a disclaimer that says "rating subject to change with online play" or something to that effect. Not to mention the amount of twisted stuff I'd bet is out there would probably drive any researcher insane...

Outside of the internet inclusion though this seems like it will be reasonable. My personal take it that it's outright bad to shield kids anymore than a parent must to ensure the kids long term safety. Shielding a 4 year old from Manhunt is good, shielding a 17 year old is not so good unless they've shown they're not mature enough to handle the game. Basically if the person is mature enough to deal with the content, the more they see, the more they learn and can cope with it in the real world. Granted only on simple levels, playing a war game where a buddy gets hit by a sniper will not make the kid a sniper, but in the tragic event that someone does go on a sniper killing spree the gamer might react fast enough to save them self recognizing the attack for what it is. Very strange and extreme situation, but it illustrates my point, kids will not become violent from gaming but will learn to recognize situations from playing games, and if they're mature enough for the content then even if they didn't react in a proper way in the game they're more likely to react in a proper way in the real world.

Plus if they don't gradually acclimate to violence by playing games what happens to them when a bad Google search winds up showing them helicopter fatalities or they catch some of the evening news. That sheltered psyche has become so fragile that these are likely to shatter their mind and world perception, which is going to be way more damaging than some people playing games.

I knew a girl in school who was real smart. Always got A's. Parents never let her watch TV or videogames. Didn't even have a TV in the house. When she went to college, she dyed her hair black, painted her nails black, and went totally wild.

I was also raised fairly protected, in the middle of nowhere, in the country. However I got enough life from TV, video games and anime that when I turned 18 and moved out of the house to live in the big city by myself, I didn't go crazy like some people suggested I might. However, I don't think I kept a level head because of my parents upbringing, I think I did so despite their upbringing. Everything I knew about life I learned on the sly. Everything I learned about dating I had to do on my own because my parents never let me date.

Really, I can't say I'm surprised at all to see someone in the UK saying this kind of thing, I am however definitely relieved.. I was beginning to worry about how much our culture had changed from when I was a child, and it wasn't that long ago.. I was born in 1980, so it was before the internet and gaming became an issue, but not long ago at all.

For as long as I can remember the whole "protectionist" attitude towards children was considered deeply weird by parents, teachers, social services.. everyone. When there were pedophiles possibly in the area, we got given a speech by our parents and teachers along the lines of "if someone tries to get you into a car, kick them in the nuts and run away screaming". Once the initial threat was gone, by either the person getting caught, or a few weeks passing... we went back to playing in the park unsupervised like we always had been.

When one of us fell over and smacked ourselves on the floor, we went home, got cleaned up, and sent right back outside.

When we got bullied, we ran home crying because someone said or did mean things, we got turned around and told to get back out there and deal with it ourselves.

When we got into fights, we got bandaged up and told we were stupid for fighting, while our dads (and often our mothers) laughed about it once we were out of the way.

If one of our friends got sick with a non dangerous illness.. we got told to go spend time with them.. on the principle that it was better for us to get the bug, get it into our immune system, and then not get it again later.

When we did something incredibly wrong, like hurting animals, or dangerous like setting fire to something... we got put over our parents knee and given a spanking, and the shock of it reinforced that it was wrong.

I'm not sure when, but by the time I was an adult I had found the world changed... I hate to say it, but American and psychologists had persuaded parents they needed to wrap their kids up in cotton wool, make the world a special place, "understand" them when they did bad things, prevent them from hurting anyone ever, and try and make them feel they were some kinda special snowflake.... it sickens me, I truely hope this is a start of a return to a sensible world.

@Icehawk

Online games yes but its more Online than gaming. Are they going to try to outlaw the internet? Games in themselves are neutral in that regards. Pedo’s exist in many forms.

Kids being introduced to online *anything* need to be made aware of the risks. And seeing as online gaming is exploding, it's a logical area for educating kids about some issues they should be aware of while being online.

As others have said, she's not just focusing on gaming. So there will be some crossover.

@Shaesyco

Hmm... Guess I was just confused, looks like it's time for me to dig the book back out and read it again. Oh well.

On your other topic I have to agree that the average parent doesn't know enough to keep their kids safe online, since the average parent is old enough that they never got into games when they first came out and are now hopelessly behind now. I don't however see how this relates to the feminist movement (which, as a guy I do support so long as it keeps meaning equality, I do not support the "feminists" who require treatment as if they're superior and are just intent on putting down/harassing guys).

@ Ix, Shaesyco

The Betrayer weres limited to the 9th level. Dante had a rather severe hatred/contempt of betrayers (feeling betrayed by his exile). I vaguely remember the poem and think there was one other plane of ice around the 6 or 7 circle but am not sure.

@ Jabrwock

Sorry to be fixated on the "games" aspect. It is how the title started and a common thread here.

I do agree that parents do not do their best by trying to shelter children. I too was raised in a family that taught if you feel down to get right back up and try again. None of the kids in neighborhood wore protective clothing yet we played games in the street and rode out bikes and such. Played "army" (as we got older we used BB-guns until someone got hurt) and did not get violent or go on shooting sprees. We all survived without incident. Not sure when it started to change.

Elbow and knee pads and a helmet to bike or skate... who are you kidding? Then again when I was growing up both of my parents did not need to work (mom did part time when they wanted something special) so there was almost always a parent there to guide the child. Now that both parents work and are rarely around the whole "protect the children" might be over-compensation.

@Icehawk

Elbow and knee pads and a helmet to bike or skate… who are you kidding?

I learned my lesson when I was a kid. Had a particularly nasty wipeout on my bike. Tore the skin up on my hands, knees, elbows, and shoulder (landed on loose gravel on top of paved concrete), and would have cracked my skull if I hadn't been wearing a helmet at the time.

There's no need to go completely looney on protection, but it's stupid to ignore it as well...

@Destractors:

Byron is a TV shrink in that she's a psychologist who became famous for making a few TV shows. Fortunately she didn't have to have a lobotomy in order to look into a camera. She's really not the sort to scream "FOR TEH CHILDRENZ." Her TV shows are aimed at educating parents, something which we could all benefit from.

Parents in the UK make a big deal about having to get up at 4am to work down the mines (after travelling fifteen miles in the snow) and then fight the ducks for scraps of stale bread for supper and so generally don't follow the cotton wool approach.

Makes a great point, however you can't ban reasonably excessive media from adults, this is soemthign I can not let go off, if you are goign to ban do it to where the items can be easily gotten by adults.

And before anyone starts I am not even talking about real baned items I am talking about items that are dismissed by overly anal adults who think treat other adults as kids.

I look forward to the conclusion of this particular case. Dr Byron seems like a reasonable, intelligent woman, who might just give this the fair and balanced look it needs. And then we can shove it in the faces of all the anti-gamer folks if it comes out proving what we've thought for years, and say "nana booboo."

Finally, the article that should've been written about the UK review in the first place. The original article on Joystiq was written hastily and didn't reflect the actual reviews point.

If people would realise that the UK government isn't actually unreasonable, and assume like our American cousins, we'll shoot off the hip on an issue, then I'd be happier.

This review might actually do more good than people realise. I know full well it will result in a program to educate parents first and foremost... It might bring full BBFC classification into the equation, but that isn't bad, as they already review games at 15 and 18 level, and I believe have been fairly even handed about it (yes including Manhunt 2, for reasons I've gone into many times...) so adding Uc, U, PG, and 12 wouldn't be an issue. Parents in the UK understand that classification, so having it, and the PEGI ratings can only reinforce things.

If this study (like others before it) does not conclude games will turn us all into killers, the funders (government) will simply commission another study until they get the answer that gives them the most political ammunition.

"Byron says society has become so “risk averse” that many young people no longer know how to protect themselves from harm such as web paedophiles."


alright, your credibility just dropped faster than Jt's ever has. just like that.

IT SEEMS TODAY THAT PARENTS ARE A BUNCH OF WIMPS. WHICH BRINGS ME TO AN ARTICLE I READ ABOUT A YEAR AGO http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=beat . YOU MIGHT SAY PARENTS SHOULD NOT PHYSICALY DISIPLINE YOUR CHILD, BUT WHAT DO YOU KNOW, YOUR KIDS WALK ALL OVER YOU ANYWAY BECAUSE YOU ARE TO "UNDERSTANDING" TO DO SO. I HAVE GROWN UP PLAYING VIDEO GAMES MY WHOLE LIFE, AS WELL AS MY FRIENDS. THEY SAY THAT VIDEO GAMES MADE ABOUT 60BILLION DOLLARS LAST YEAR. WHERE IS THE LABOR OF THERE FRUIT? MOST OF THE NEWS IF HAVE READ AS OF LATE IS NOT PERSON ON PERSON KILLING BECAUSE OF THE MESSAGE THAT A VIDEO GAME GIVES THEM THE MANIFESTO (THE MOST RETARDED IDEA TO HAVE CAME OUT OF ANYONES MOUTH). BUT I DO HERE A GREAT DEAL OF PARENTS KILLING THERE KIDS. IMO I THINK THAT PARENTS, DRUGS, MOSTLY PARENTS ARE TO BLAME FOR THE VIOLENCE IN OUR NATION. AND FOR THE RECORD, CRIME HAS WENT DOWN SINCE THE 80'S WHEN VIDEO GAMES HAVE COME OUT, CAN YOU SAY SCAPE GOAT? I CAN. WHAT IS THE RISK INVOLVED IN TALKING TO PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET ANYWAY. IF YOU ARE JUST TO STUPID TO KNOW BETTER THAN TO MEET A STANGER AT SOMEONES HOUSE OR A SECLUDED SPOT, YOU SHOULD BE RAPED ANYWAY FOR HAVING NO CLUE. GOD DID NOT GIVE PEOPLE A BRAIN SO THEY WOULD USE POR JUDGEMENT WHEN IT CAME TO LIFE THREATENING SITUATIONS. COME ON PEOPLE, THAT THAT LINK TO HEART. I WAS DISPLINED AS A CHILD AND GREW UP TO RELIZE THAT THEY WERE RIGHT FOR WHAT THEY DID.

@ Ix

the question is why parents go after the game companies instead of the retailers who are causing the problem?

Pandralisk
well the fundies have to protect thier sheeple too....ZOMG life raise the shield,ZOMG free thought set phazers to exterminate!....exterminate! .....exterminate! .......

why is there a squishy roaming around in a tincan in my head 0-o