A survey conducted by discount website MyVoucherCodes shows that a good chunk of UK parents allow their kids to play videogames inappropriate for their age.
39.0% of those surveyed allowed younger kids to play games outside of their designated age range, with 25.0% admitting they had played such games alongside their children.
Still, when compared to other types of media, videogames had the lowest numbers in the survey: 53.0% allowed their kids to watch movies outside of the recommended age range; while 66.0% let their offspring listen to music with explicit lyrics.
MyVoucherCodes Managing Director Mark Pearson stated:
I was surprised by how many parents have actually allowed their child to watch a film, play a game or listen to music knowing that they weren’t old to do so. I think that every child is different and what is right for one might not be for another, but I do think that ratings are there for a reason, so parents should execute some caution on deciding what they should expose their children to.
|Via Network World|
These decisions are for the parents to make, it is not for the Government to agree or disagree with them, merely to make parents aware of the options and of the risks. The PEGI/BBFC should be dealing with making sure that games, movies etc fall within certain boundaries already, there shouldn’t really be anything other than education required beyond those lines.
So these parents are idiots because they choose to let their kids use a perfectly harmless form of entertainment while unsupervised. Maybe we should also ensure that kids eat all their meals supervised, wash supervised and sleep supervised – these are also perfectly harmless activities that kids can do perfectly well while not being watched.
I’d love to know your definition of idiocy, because apparently it involves parents allowing their kids to do harmless stuff. Perhaps you can explain that.
M-for-mature is more-so for kids 15+, realistically speaking. There are some M games that are more leaned towards adults than teens, but the AO rating is reserved strictly for the "worst-of-the-worst" games. Sure, it needs some work, but it’s worked pretty damn well so far.
-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-
You’re getting confused by my personal beliefs and the law. They are two different things. Personally, I think it’s fine for kids to watch either sex or violence, as long as the child isn’t being exploited. But legally speaking, exposing children to pornography (whether the child is being exploited or not) is against the law. Obeying the law while disagreeing with it is not evidence of hypocrisy.
As for what is ‘better’ for the child, clearly watching consensual sex is more educational and therefore probably more healthy (though violence has not been shown to do any harm in and of itself). But society tends to regard sex as worse than violence. Society’s hypocrisy and downright stupidity is not my fault.
I don’t get why you think it’s okay for kids to watch violence, but not sex?
Since the invention of the Internet there are plenty of hormonal kids out there watching porn.
Surely watching a consensual sex act is better than watching an act of (obviously non-consensual) violence?
I was surprised by how many parents have actually allowed their child to watch a film, play a game or listen to music knowing that they weren’t old to do so. I think that every child is different and what is right for one might not be for another, but I do think that ratings are there for a reason, so parents should execute some caution on deciding what they should expose their children to.
Maybe b/c the parents don’t care about the ratings or are okay w/them to allow their kids to play them. & it’s the decision of the parents or they just don’t look at the ratings.
"It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry
"For me the frustration comes from these parents that disregard the RECOMMENDED ratings."
How can you tell they’re disregarding them? They may be taking them into consideration and then making an informed choice. I think the problem here has to do more with newspaper and magazine columnists who ASSUME parents are not making an informed choice simply because their choice falls outside of what the writer thinks is appropriate.
What parents let their kids play is their business. For me the frustration comes from these parents that disregard the RECOMMENDED ratings. Some kids mature faster and can handle mature topics at a younger age and others are the opposite. I think people try to find one master solution for a whole web of problems which is unrealistic. The only frustration I have with some parents that say they willingly don’t adhere to the recommended ratings, then when and if something happens that may have been possibly influenced by a game, then they criticize the game when they should be criticizing themselves for not having a more hands on approach watching what their kids play and watch.
*If you don’t want the government in your backyard, then stop demanding the government to make decisions you should be making for yourselves.*
"A survey conducted by discount website MyVoucherCodes shows that a good chunk of UK parents allow their kids to play videogames inappropriate for their age."
Erm… there is NO SUCH THING as an age ‘inappropriate’ videogame (unless, of course, it’s pornographic) and there’s no such thing as ‘not being old enough’ to play an age-rated videogame or listen to an age-rated music CD. How biased can the article get? Ratings are there as a guide – they are not there as some sort of arbiter of appropriateness. If a parent wants to let his child play a mature-rated game or listen to music with explicit lyrics, that’s entirely his prerogative. Such a decision is not inappropriate or wrong – videogames and music are not alcohol, tobacco or porn.
Here’s my simple ratings guide:
Any game rating is perfectly good for your kids as long as it doesn’t show what is legally defined as pornography. In actual practice the ratings don’t exist to tell a parent what’s appropriate for kids – they exist to tell a kid how much of an asshole his/her parent is.
My daughter is six – she does well in school, she has yet to miss a homework assignment, she’s very kind and completely non-violent. She also plays Assassin’s Creed 2 (rated Mature by the ESRB), not because I’m a bad parent, but because there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with kids playing violent games.
I still fail to see any difference in games with an M rating and games with an AO rating.
Typically it comes down to the fact that an AO rated game contains some sort of sexual content that wouldn’t be out of place in a PG-13 rated film. Many of the games rated AO should have been given M ratings, and anyway what difference does it make to someone who is 17 than to someone who is 18? What makes one year’s difference so important?
Mass Effect: BBFC – 12, PEGi – 18, ESRB – M.
Here is my simple way of talking about the Ratings, let’s use the ESRB for example.
E for Everyone = OK for your kids.
E10+ for everyone 10 and over = OK for your kids if they are able to understand the simple rules of fighting without having any blood.
T for Teens = May be ok for your kids even if they are over the age of 10 because it is made for anyone for a young teenage audience or above.
M17+ for Mature and over the age of 17+ = Maybe not ok for your kids considering this is a game for an older teenage audience and above.
AO18+ = Certainly NOT ok for any kid under the age of 18.
Ok, do you think I am clear enough?
For the PEGI, you can take it as Green = OK for your kids. Yellow = Maybe for your kids. Red = maybe not for your kids and 18 = Strictly NOT for your kids.
I am almost thirty myself and I have been playing video games since I first opened my father’s Nintendo box and played Mario Bro’s for the Nintendo. From then on very simple games till at Eight years old I first happened to rent a game that changed my life, Final Fantasy III.
From then on I played Mature games and games like Lunar that showed a lot of skin and had mature themes. Hell, in my Catholic High school every morning we would play Doom and Warcraft 2.
When I seen my mother allowing my son to play Grand Theft Auto 4, I had to sit there and think wtf? Is this kid even old enough to play this game and when just so happens a hooker gets in the car and she goes down on Niko and someone sees that, knowing my mother she is going to blame everyone else but herself.
I personally would allow my son to play Mature games if of course he could understand and play the game. If the kid is smart enough to read and comprehend what is going on then hey good for him. If it’s too much for the kid then maybe you need to take a step back. Cause come on, you might want to shelter your child from certain things in life as long as possible so they can enjoy their childhood but some horrors need to be exposed and taught as soon as possible before they are overwhelmed and taken back on what’s surrounding them.
Wait just a minute, ratings are not the you HAVE to be this age to play, just a recommendation. Just becouse a parent chooses to decide what is right for their kid rather than listen to a committee made for the more protective parents does not make them an idiot.
There was a BS episode on this, and they had a kid on it who played CoD, clearly under the rating. Why would the mom allow this? Because she new her son wasn’t violent to begin with, they even got him to go and fire an actual military strength rifle on a range, and he cried.
It is up to the parents to decide when your kid is mature enough to play a game or whether it will affect him badly. The good parents don’t need the rating system because they can decide without it. The really good ones play a game with their kid because it helps them explain things to them if needed.
And this is exactly what anti-game "think of the children" types fail to realize, the industry is as responsible as it can be, but at the end of the day you can’t force parents not to be idiots.
So, in other words, we don’t need different rating systems, we need parents who actually pay attention to them. Also, I agree that kids don’t always fit age ratings. I was playing some M-rated games at 14-15 years old because my parents thought I was mature enough to handle it. Some kids are just ready for the content earlier than others.
When something negatively effects a tiny portion of the population, should we make laws that fuck over the vast majority?
That’d be like saying none of the 300 million people in the US can drink just because there are a few thousand deaths caused by alcohol poisoning and drunken stupidity every year.
You’re right, games and movies are different.
BBFC has concluded that movies are *WORSE* becaue of their non-interactivity.
>I hate people saying "it doesn’t affect me, so therefore because I’m so important the rules applies to everyone".
Really? Because I just read his post back, and he doesn’t include that second bit, only ever saying "it doesn’t affect me". If anything, it’s probably much closer to "it doesn’t affect me, being as I am, an unimportant, normal human being not specifically different from the majority (at least psychologically), perfectly capable of functioning like everybody else and as such, it’s probably not unreasonable to extrapolate that other unimportant, normal human beings might just react similarly."
Maybe it’s the wording.
/b
You missed the point really. Apart from being entirely wrong about there being better games out there than GTA, the point I was making is that I hate people saying "it doesn’t affect me, so therefore because I’m so important the rules applies to everyone". It’s such a weak argument in support of games and apparently shows such an incredible depth of maturity from the gamer for not being affected by the media (as if it would anyway), it’s egotism. To be honest I don’t know what the hell you’re going on about by saying people who say games affect people are psychotic.
Science in regards to watching and copying behaviour from gaming haven’t really had results to prove anything one way or another. Games unlike films are interactive, so I wouldn’t personally say that games have the same effect that films do, that is an area that needs research. From a personal POV I find horror games to be much more scary that horror films simply because of their interactive nature. I don’t think we can pass games off as being the same as films. Regardless no evidence to prove anything one way or another.
But please gamers stop using the argument "I play violent games and I’m not violent". Think of a better argument, so science doesn’t conclude anything, please say something else because I’m sick of the weak above mentioned argument (and it doesn’t help either).
Well how many are there for their actions?
And how many are there purely for what they said?
"You assume that games actually contain anything of worth. Unlike films, TV and even music games don’t actually try to explore ideas or concepts, they don’t explore emotions or try to discuss or raise important points…"
Clearly you’ve never played a strategy game like Rome: Total War, an historical simulation game like Silent Hunter 3, or a game like The Last Express, which explores the political situation behind WW1, challenges the player’s mind with logic puzzles and is immensely emotionally engaging. Clearly you’ve never played either Assassin’s Creed game – if you had, you’d know a lot more about the Crusades and Renaissance Italy than someone who had seen a movie or TV show about those periods such as Kingdom of Heaven or The Tudors.
And if you think TV, movies and music are naturally imbued with higher concepts clearly you don’t watch or listen to much of those media – never seen a Reality TV show, watched a movie by the Wayans brothers, or listened to a Britney Spears CD. If you had, you’d know that TV, movies and music can be far less intelligent than most video games.
"So you say that the only way for games to progress is to become more controversial?"
No, no, that wasn’t what I was getting at. I too don’t think that more sex/violence equals more maturity. I’m saying that people should try to have difficult issues in their games, despite the fact that the public in general would denounce it. I do however think that games should at least progress on that front to an equal level with movies. I mean damn, a little bit of ass and some side boob in mass effect caused so much outcry that its ridiculous. Bioware even went and scaled back the Dragon Age’s "sex scenes" because of it. As if they already weren’t a whole lot of nothing to begin with.
People don’t take games seriously, and so the industry doesn’t take itself seriously either.
This may not be a good example, but look at Six Days in Fallujah. Whatever your opinions on the game may be, the developers expressed an interest in exploring some of the issues soldiers have to deal with in that time. They didn’t want to make some adrenaline packed shooter like all the other ones, they wanted to do some genuine exploring using games as a medium. Whether they could have actually achieved that is up in the air, but it was never even given that chance. The public quickly came out and said that it would be trivializing or even glorifying the various acts that went on there for the simple fact that it would be a game. I mean damn, a quick google search on it turns up several quotes from soldiers, politicians, and regular people saying as much; that it was impossible to deal with it maturely just because of the proposed medium. Of course, the publishers, being the little pansies they are, also quickly backed out and weren’t even slightly interested in trying someting different. Though my ability to blame the publishers is somewhat diminished by the fact that I understand that they are businessmen first and foremost.
Its all about that attitude towards games. It needs to change, it really does. My own teacher, an avid gamer as well as one of the main instructors in the digital storytelling track of our new media department (read: video game instructor) still espouses the belief that video games should be fun. I don’t think they need to be fun at all, just compelling. After all, would you watch/read an epic tragedy because it amuses you? I hope not.
Guantanamo Bay anyone?
You can be an Islamic extremist. There is no law against that. You can even state how you wish for God to finally come to Earth and wipe us of the non-believers (many fundamentalist Christians say that same thing for atheists/Muslims). It’s only when you try and infringe on the rights of OTHERS that it becomes illegal. Playing a video game or watching a movie does nothing against the rights of others.
-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-
Terrorist = action, not thought. Nice strawman.
Terrorist = action, not thought. Nice strawman.
Don’t explore emotions? Go play Lost Odyssey
Don’t raise important points? Go play Planescape:Torment
Birth of a Nation was such the highpoint of intellectual maturity.
Whilst I’m not surprised that the argument has gotten into an argument about penis size (mine’s bigger than yours) I’ll go on about the other points.
Haven’t you missed the point that you feel that in order to justify a game’s existence you have to say that it either helps someone’s development or that it raises important points/debates.
I don’t really buy into this free speech argument needed to let people develop their own concepts and morality. Because whilst it is obviously an ideal held by the USA to state how their country is better than everyone else, it stills wants everyone to think in exactly the same way. The law exists to try to prevent people from carrying certain believes, to think in a certain way.
If you were an Islamic terrorist you would be looked up for example, so obviously the USA like any where else has restrictions on what their population can and can’t believe in. It’s naive to believe that your country allows you to develop and form any opinion you want. Now it’s not as extreme as say China in this, but it’s not as free as you would like to believe.
So you say that the only way for games to progress is to become more controversial? Well that forms the belief that maturity means more sex and violence. Whilst Manhunt 1 may have explored some of the themes of recorded violence, Manhunt 2 (which was more controversial, due to the original amount of graphic violence in the original uncut version) wasn’t a more mature game, it did nothing to progress gaming as an intellectual medium.
When you look at books that pushed the boundaries a lot were to do with the amount of sex contained in them, they didn’t push the boundaries by being more intellectual. Indeed I can’t really think of any form of media that was controversial simply because it was more intellectual that what had gone before.
I really hate the assumption that adult = sex/violence. The reason games haven’t matured is mainly to do with sales. Games developers need the games to be sold as widely as possible (even Take 2 has admitted that it needs GTA to sell to youngsters), and generally (like in cinema) brainless blockbusters perform better than dramas. Many developers still seem to have the minds of children and it’s all a bit juvenile, they believe adult equates to sex/violence.
your first statement is ridiculous, you have no way of knowing that, and I have indeed played hundreds of games.
I’ll agree with you on fahrenheit, it was going well untill the last act. Heres some games that have some more interesting explorations.
psychonauts, while on the surface is a simple comedic cartoony platformer, it has a subtler insight into human emotion and interaction, the whole subtext of the gameplay, going into peoples heads, seeing through their eyes, playing out there own fears and paranoia. its easy to dismiss when there is a lot more there than it seems.
The longest journey and to an extent its sequel dreamfall are plot rich to the point where they seem like novels on their own.
Deus Ex, like all good cyberpunk scifi takes a great stance on technology and its affect on human society, plot rich, questions of moral abiguity, plus great gameplay.
There are a lot of deep games out there, but yes there is a lot of dross too, but thats due to the laziness of developers, not the medium itself, games are capable of all the intellectual maturity and rich contribution as any other medium, the fact that only the minority do is simply because the medium isnt given enough respect and thus not enough people are willing to try.
I would think that those playing a role-playing game aren’t there because the gameplay is fun the whole way through. I sure as hell didn’t sit through FF7 (or any of the earlier ones either) because I loved the random turn-based battle system.
As for whether or not games have inspired any kind of significant thought, to categorically state otherwise is just plain wrong. Introspection by its very nature is a very personal affair, and each person is very different. Therefore their places/methods/mediums of inspiration are different as well.
Now, as for the main topic at hand, I agree that games are currently at an immature level. The problem doesn’t lie in the games themselves though, it lies in an attitude very similar to the one you just adopted in your post, and its one thats rampant not only within the industry itself but also within the public eye.
Authors way back when would publish controversial works, either not fearing the consequences or even welcoming them, knowing it would make a difference. Now, someone tries to make something even remotely controversial, someone complains, and the industry immediately backs off and starts administering smacks across the wrist for daring to push any envelope besides those in technology or cost. In other words, games keep getting prettier, and cost more, but the maturity level hasn’t gone up all that much because of a very common, and very frustrating, opinion.
In truth, the only progress we’ve really been making over the years is in the legal area. I suppose thats a good thing, as nothing will happen if developers and publishers are afraid of being brought into court for every little thing. But I wish that more proactive things were being done to change public opinion of what games really are, and that they could be more than just simple mindless entertainment if only people would support it.
Books and films have been around for much longer, and they have more of the public trust and understanding when dealing with difficult issues. They also have much more experience in dealing with that sort of thing, and the quality of its writers and other talent are a level higher than in the gaming industry because of said reasons. They didn’t just get them easily either, they had to work for it just like we have to. Its a little unfair to compare games to those mediums, on those grounds, just yet as books and film have fought their battles with the public already. We are only just starting ours, and I don’t think we are fighting it very well.
Well I know that I can safely say that I’ve played more games than you, easily in their hundreds. Again simplistic arguing from gamers that if someone says anything remotely negative about games they must be Jack Thompson.
Most games usually focus on the same old "chosen one who must save the Earth" type business. A lot of games the writing (if it actually exists) is simply poor, but very few people actually play games for the plot and script but rather the gameplay.
Fahrenheit started down the path of actually getting into characters’ heads and to explore their emotions (but was rather let down by the silly final third). Bioshock whilst interesting that it explores the idea of control could not be considered equal to an Oscar winning film. The GTA series as it has developed over the years has become much more critical of American culture, but again even discussing issues such as homosexuality it’s incredibly basic (not near an sort of intellectual plane as a good piece of cinema or television). Games like Fallout 3 or Bioware RPGs whilst having a morality system don’t fully explore these ideas of morality, they simply contain rather binary outcomes.
Essentially if I want to made to think I’ll watch television or film or read a book. Games don’t make you think about issues, they’re purely for entertainment. I would like games to mature but that just seems to be asking for too much (and mature doesn’t mean have to mean more sex and violence).
Now there’s a different argument as to whether games should be allowed to practice free speech, which they pretty much do. As to whether they’ve really ever been much use to someone developing their own opinions and viewpoints, I have to say that they haven’t and I don’t think we should use that sort of argument as to whether games should exist or not (it’s a high ideological argument and one that doesn’t suit the medium of gaming).
Well if a painting of a can of Campbell’s soup can be considered protected by Freedom of Speech I see no reason why a video game can’t be. Whether of not you think a game like lets say Doom in which you just go around killing Demons to save mankind from Hell is overtly simplistic and adds anything to the Free Expression of ideas doesn’t matter as what does or does not contain merit is subjective and differs from person to person.
I think the biggest question about video games is whether or not they are more Conduct or Speech? Video games do require a conduct element to them as you have to play them to get through them and see/hear the ideas, information, messages, and opinions contained within their visuals, audio and stoylines but because you can’t seperate the conduct element from the Speech contained therein and playing a video game doesn’t cause anything physically to happen outside of what appears on your screen I think they squarely fall within the Speech catagory.
"No law means no law" – Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment
I have to ask how many games you have even played? and if you can even try and make that extrapolation without having played every game, I have played a lot that have elicited emotion, some making important an noble statements for years.
MGS was going on about the perils of nuclear war ten years ago. to name just a prominent one. and many old point and click adventure games were reliant on cogent narratives to keep them going.
I dont even feel like listing all the games I’ve played with compelling and well written plots, there too many to remember, many of which were made years ago, near the inception of gaming. It would probably be better for you to list the games you’ve played that give you this flawed perception of the medium, if you’ve played any at all, Jack…
You assume that games actually contain anything of worth. Unlike films, TV and even music games don’t actually try to explore ideas or concepts, they don’t explore emotions or try to discuss or raise important points, they all end up revolving around a very basic plot used to connect a set of events together.
Games just end up being there purely for entertainment, as a way to spend time, but do they have any intellectual worth? No and it’s a shame really, they still haven’t reached any level of intellectual maturity, something films did very near to their inception.
"If I had a pound or a dollar for everytime I’ve heard someone say that I could’ve cured the national debt problems of both the UK and USA."
And if I had a pound or a dollar for every time someone killed someone or robbed a car due to playing GTA, I would starve to death. So what’s your point?
"Let me guess, you’ve played GTA and never felt the need to go out and kill someone or rob a car. If I had a pound or a dollar for everytime I’ve heard someone say that I could’ve cured the national debt problems of both the UK and USA."
The point is, NO ONE who has played GTA has ever been influenced by the game to go out and kill someone or rob a car.
The only thing i’ve felt the need to do after playing GTA is be thankful my real life driving is not at shitty as it is in the game. It’s like the game WANTS me to use the side walk as an extra lane.
Also i apparently have some deep ingrained hatred agains virtual street lights.
I personally don’t care about GTA. There are far better games out there. But no, I’ve never played any violent video game, GTA included, and wanted afterwards to go out and kill people. Saying that such a connection would exist in 99.999% of people is far weaker than tenuous, is completely unfounded in any psychological studies as well as actual, real life data, and boarders on psychotic.
Violent media does not equate to violence.
Then again, I don’t think fake imagery on the magical projection box influences kids to violence at all, so that probably flavors my opinion. Aerospace engineering graduate from UCLA, and watcher of violent media and video games since I can remember.
Let me guess, you’ve played GTA and never felt the need to go out and kill someone or rob a car. If I had a pound or a dollar for everytime I’ve heard someone say that I could’ve cured the national debt problems of both the UK and USA.
Did you even read the article in the link. If you didn’t, then you’re being an ignorant fool. Retailers always remind parent when they buy a M-rated game, hence the ID-check and reminding parent about the content in the game to make sure. Then how do you know that all parent are dumb when it comes to buying video game, do you have evidence to back yourself up. Of course there will be a parent or parents that will be dumb and not responsible, but we have more responsible parent because of the Kotaku article backing that up. Also I was looking at the ESA’s Essential facts about video game and violence. According to that, it said 88% of parents who monitor the content of the games their children play (are you going to say the ESA make a mistake on that one also?).
"But the good news is that parents in USA are starting to be more responsible when it comes to picking up video game."
There is no such thing as being ‘more responsible’ when it comes to choosing video games for children – because video games are COMPLETELY HARMLESS! If you don’t agree, before you start the name-calling, please do what the anti-video game crowd have been trying to do unsuccessfully for years – i.e. PROVE that they’re harmful. If you can’t do that, do us all the courtesy of keeping your ill-conceived notions of ‘parental responsibility’ to yourself.
yeah, some times the title can be misleading. I remember when as a 12 year old, i wanted to rent Conker’s Bad Fur Day, which without looking, the whole squirle kiddy look thing could be misleading. Apparenlty the rental store had this issue because when the attendant looked at it, she asked my dad "you DO know what this game contains correct?"
And i am proud to say he said yes, because i told him in great detail what the game contained before i asked if i could rent it.
Sadly, half of parents don’t pay attention to the rating. They assume that all video game are for all kids. They never bother to look at the rating or sometime the game title name themselves tell you that game isn’t for kid. I bet you that parents are going to pick up Fairytale Fights and not knowing the game is actually violent not kiddy stuff.
But the good news is that parents in USA are starting to be more responsible when it comes to picking up video game.
http://kotaku.com/5439969/there-are-responsible-parents-out-there
Now if the UK can read the article I link above, maybe they’ll learn some goddamn parenting and know which game to buy and what’s not.
Besides, age ratings are there to HELP parents who want help.
Parents who don’t want help make their own choices based on their own decisions.
I also don’t see a problem with teenagers (lets say in high school and age 14+) playing any video games/watching any movies/listening to any music that they want to. You have to allow those nearing the age of majority the ability to form their own viewpoints based on unrestricted and uncensored access to Free Speech media that presents ideas, information, messages and opinions otherwise by the time they reach legal adulthood thier minds could very well be a blank and they’ll could be unable to deal with the real world as we know it. Reality isn’t sunshine, lollypops and rivers of cotton candy. We shouldn’t try to hide or sheild these things from older minors and teenagers. I believe those that try to do that are doing much more harm then help.
"No law means no law" – Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment
It is not a bad thing for a 14 year old to play an M or 18+ rated game.
I feel that people take Game Ratings too seriously that they are too eager to give parents the "Bad Parent" label too soon without understanding that PARENT’S know that Videogames WON’T turn their kids into violent people, and sometimes many parents think differently about each rating.
So all I can say about people who have a problem with all of this, is to just grow up and get a life. YOU make YOUR rules about game classification and ratings, OTHERS make THEIR own rules for THEIR own families about game ratings and classification.
So in all reality, I’d say that Anti-gamers are getting too hyped up over something that they don’t understand about.
If you are 15 and your parents allow you to play an 18 rated game, I feel that is ok as long as they feel you are mature about it.
However I would feel that it is not quite appropriate for a 5 year old or 10 year old to play an 18 rated game, but in the end that is only my opinion and it can be different from other people.
"39.0% of those surveyed allowed younger kids to play games outside of their designated age range, with 25.0% admitting they had played such games alongside their children."
Good. Age ratings, after all, are a suggestion based on the lowest common denominator. If the parents know, and are fine with it, then there’s no problem.
Then again, I don’t think fake imagery on the magical projection box influences kids to violence at all, so that probably flavors my opinion. Aerospace engineering graduate from UCLA, and watcher of violent media and video games since I can remember.
So the obvious and logical solution is to ban all video games that are rated 16+ or higher.
Just wait…someone’s actually going to argue that.
To the article: Yeah, because ALL 13-year-olds are totally unable to play 16+ games. >.>
-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-
"…parents should execute some caution on deciding what they should expose their children to."
It sounds like they were, by nearly a 2-to-1 margin: 25% said they played the games WITH their kids, 14% said they let them play unsupervised.
These parents are aware of what their kids are playing, because they’re sitting right there playing with them. That’s their prerogative; they’re the PARENTS.
It’s the ratings boards’ job to inform parents of content in games, not to scold the ones who already know and let their kids play anyway.
Poll: Modern world Parents Not Overly Adherent to Ratings
————–
Thar I fixed your title……
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/