×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Real Mom Reviews the Games Industry Report Card

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the oooo-you-are-so-in-trouble dept.

Games 126

Last month's National Institute on Media and the Family 'report card' was pretty much more of the same from the reactionary group. Recently a real parent (Colleen Hannon from GamerDad) sat down with the report to offer up some comments. "They still can't seem to read the names of the games off the front of the box. What they have listed as 'Call to Duty 4' is actually Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. That may seem like a minor mistake, but if you type what's on their list into a search engine to get more information off the ESRB's website or Google, it won't return the real results on the game. And without that last bit at the end, you're going to get a list with all the games in the series which can be confusing and not all of them are M rated. For someone who thinks parents should pay more attention and research they aren't helping them out much." Via GamePolitics.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

126 comments

Mom I'd Like To... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21909750)

Frag?

If he's such an expert.. (4, Informative)

kailoran (887304) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909792)

From TFA:

If I had to come up with some suggestions for a tween/teenage car nut that don't involve getting chased by cops at any point in the game, I'd replace Need for Speed with either "Project Gotham Racing 4" or "Forza Motorsport 2".
Someone should tell him that the new NFS actually has no cops and is about legal racing this time

Re:If he's such an expert.. (3, Insightful)

paitre (32242) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909808)

The fact that he knew that was a featuer of games earlier in the series would indicate that he's more of one than most parents' seem to be.

Even those of the 'gamer generation'.

Re:If he's such an expert.. (1)

paitre (32242) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909882)

Yeah... 'she', not he.
And 'feature'.

Christ I need to preview before I hit post more often...

Re:If he's such an expert.. (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909850)

Someone should tell kailoran that a "mom" is never a he or a him.

Re:If he's such an expert.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21909880)

Some people are just kinky that way. Live and let live, that's what I say.

Re:If he's such an expert.. (1)

kailoran (887304) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909994)

In my defense, the site is called Gamerdad... and seriously, how can you expect people here to read TFA that carefully anyway?

Re:If he's such an expert.. (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910270)

Slashdot has gotten to the point where we aren't even reading the title?

RTFT!

Re:If he's such an expert.. (3, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21911318)

I totally didnt read what you said, but I just want to post saying that I respect you made a post, whatever it said.

Re:If he's such an expert.. (1)

Drooling Iguana (61479) | more than 6 years ago | (#21912156)

Whatever you just said was wrong and stupid.

Re:If he's such an expert.. (1)

u-bend (1095729) | more than 6 years ago | (#21913124)

Now we've got a good Slashdot discussion cooking! Anyone want to talk about science, Intelligent Design, Christianity, global warming, the Moon, or national socialists?

Re:If he's such an expert.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21910210)

Of course the new NFS is awful advert-ridden trash that tries to sell you cheats for real money at pretty much every upgrade screen. But we'll ignore that for now.

PGR4 and Forza 2 are considerable better in every way.

Re:If he's such an expert.. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21911398)

As well as the control system on the Wii being fixed in the stupid 'hold the controller 90 degrees out of sync with how you'd hold a steering wheel' mode. At least in Carbon you could choose between several different configs (they weren't really realistic either, but I quite liked controlling acceleration by angling the Wiimote..). I've given up on Prostreet at the moment and fetched my old PC steering wheel out to play Test Drive Unlimited, which is freakin awesome (I'd say it's like driving around in GTA, except you can use the clutch, gears, and drive 'real' cars)

Re:If he's such an expert.. (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910470)

True. But PGR4 and Forza 2 are both immensely superior games, so the advice still stands.

Re:If he's such an expert.. (1)

spamking (967666) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910716)

From TFA:

Someone should tell him that the new NFS actually has no cops and is about legal racing this time

Well there goes all the fun . . .

Re:If he's such an expert.. (1)

Porsche917K (1210342) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910738)

I don't think she's saying that ProStreet has cops, the absence of cops is why it's in the list in the first place.

What she's actually saying is that NFS isn't very good, and Forza and PGR both 'clean' and actually good.

Re:If he's such an expert.. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21911442)

Uh.. you really need to learn how to read. Go read what she said again, then come back. It's not in 'the list'. She talks about 'replacing' a game with cops, with a game that doesn't have cops. Most NFS games do, in fact, have cops.

Re:If he's such an expert.. (1)

jsorbie (88275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21914334)

Someone should tell him that the new NFS actually has no cops and is about legal racing this time

Good point, but not that it matters whether what's on screen is legal or illegal in real life. The San Andreas hot coffee mod depicted an activity that's perfectly legal (in the United States anyway).

The bottom line is parent's don't care (5, Insightful)

faloi (738831) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909870)

This whole mess is more about politicians being able to seemingly protect children, and get money/support from lobbying groups that want to protect the children than anything else. Parents that truly care take the time to look at the back of the box, read the descriptions and check the ESRB sticker. They don't bow to pressure from their kids to get a game that they're not comfortable with their kids playing. And then they probably watch their kid play some and make sure it's not outrageous.

Parents that don't care, or are just prone to give into their kids anyway aren't going to do any research and aren't going to be watching their kids play.

Re:The bottom line is parent's don't care (5, Insightful)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910586)

Exactly.

Today's parents just suck at parenting. They lack the minimal backbone required to tell their kids "no," because they try to be friends rather than parents.

I can't stand how bad parents let their fat kids keep grabbing the Frosted Flakes instead of insisting on Cheerios or Raisin Bran. My grandmother had a strict "no sugared cereal" policy. My siblings and I knew it and didn't even bother trying to get her to budge on it. When I got to choose a computer game for my birthday present one year (the original Civilization), my grandfather not only looked at it (out of parenting and curiosity), he made sure that I was firm in my decision, and didn't just grab I'd toss the next day. Today the most sugared cereal I eat is store brand honey nut cheerios and I don't make impulse purchases. I owe it to the previous generation's parenting skills- my parents were pretty lousy at it.

Kids used to watch too much TV instead of playing outside. Now they play idiotic action games* on their game consoles (the new "idiot box") and have asthma as an excuse. As Mike Gravel said: "Americans are getting fatter and dumber". Hard to imagine, given the current the amount of flab you see everywhere and the numskull currently occupying the White House.

* see http://www.gamershell.com/articles/884.html [gamershell.com] on what's wrong with today's games.

Re:The bottom line is parent's don't care (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910848)

Raisin Bran has among the most sugar of any cereal, thanks to the raisins. And then many people lay on a spoonful or two of sugar on top of that, to boot. You'd be better off with Frosted Flakes, AKA Sugar Frosted Flakes.

As for "fatter and dumber", fatter certainly, and lazier, but dumber?

Re:The bottom line is parent's don't care (1)

kc2keo (694222) | more than 6 years ago | (#21911350)

True... I am lucky to have great parents. I was a horrible kid to parent growing up. Always had problems and made their lives a living hell. My mother stuck by me through everything after they were divorced. She dealt with most of everything I dished out. I appreciate it a lot. My father gives me good advise on reality issues and is pretty strict. Not many parents would deal with that.

Today I see many parents lax in monitoring their kids. They really try to be their friends instead of parents. That rubs me the wrong way... Especially when their kids are fat, loud, and greedy/needy.

Thats my pet peeve for the article...

Re:The bottom line is parent's don't care (4, Interesting)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 6 years ago | (#21911494)

No SOME parents just suck at parenting. Those of us who feed their kids cheerios, restrict their TV and limit them to appropriate video games for appropriate time periods also tend not to whine to congress/the media, hence, we're harder to spot.

Restriction != Education (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21913246)

And what about those of us who feed their kids real food (like fruit and milk and all those "weird" non-frosted, non-processed things), and teach them to distinguish good TV (and games, and books) from bad, so they can make their own decisions?

There's nothing inherently wrong about TV or games. I'd much rather see my kids watching good documentaries on BBC or Discovery (or playing games that stimulate their brains) than reading shallow commercial crap like Harry Potter. But I won't forbid them from reading it, either. I'll just give them a taste of Tolkien and Terry Pratchett, and if they're smart (which they are) they'll figure out which ones to occupy their time with.

Re:The bottom line is parent's don't care (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 6 years ago | (#21912312)

> Now they play idiotic action games* on their game consoles
> * see http://www.gamershell.com/articles/884.html [gamershell.com] on what's wrong with today's games

As a game developer (PC,PS2,Wii) Anthony Brock is missing one thing -- the difficulty of porting a fixed-function console to a generic variety PC. i.e. He didn't discuss the poor port of Halo from X-Box to PC. The game was written all in C, emulating a object-orientated system, using hacks such as loading directly to memory to get maximal use of the 64 Megs of memory, using position, velocity, and acceleration of the thumbstick to minimize the dead-zone of the controller, and its low 640x480 resolution lets the GeForce "3.5" run the game's pixel shaders at a decent rate, reduced texture sizes because on a TV crisp textures don't matter as much as compared to high-res textures on a monitor. All these little "nuances" become problems in the PC world because they change the game "Feel."

Console game development took off, because it is about control -- both for 1st party and 3rd party. As developers we _know_ what the target hardware is, and will be. Flexibility and Performance tend to be inversely related. The less flexible something is, the greater the performance can be drawn out. Also, we don't have to waste our time trying to figure out the billion combinations of hardware, scratching our heads why some things work on one system and not on another. And to the end user -- they just want to play the dam game, so it is kind of a no-brainer why console gaming took off.

PC developers are also in a lose-lose situation with regards to graphics -- if they don't have fancy graphics, almost everyone reams on them for having crappy "last-gen" quality. (Everyone in the biz remembers the commercial jealousy of the "Deer Hunter" games.) If they DO have fancy graphics, almost everyone moans that you need such a high-end system. Blizzard seems to have figured out the secret is first making a fun game, and having a good balance of graphic requirements. Thank-fully the pissing contest of which graphic card is better/faster is becoming less and less of an issue, so we can focus more on game play in the future.

The other hold back to PC gaming is Walmart. 90% of games are sold in Walmart. If you game is not being carried by them, good luck getting "decent" sales.

I'm not sure why he is blaming the medium (consoles), when he completely ignored
game design. There have been good and bad games on both platforms. Consoles tend to encourage a "tighter UI" (they also tend to lack button customization which annoys me greatly.)

And while gaming these days is almost about licenses -- the publishers thinking "which license can we use to print money." -- I agree with the conclusion, gaming has been "commercialized". The commercial industry doesn't like to take risks, and is usually financially punished when it does. A lot of people loved how Ico was different, but yet financially it wasn't a hit. But it is about utilizing the strengths of the respective platforms. I see Indie games are changing the way the industry thinks, and our salvation. Counter-Strike & Portal came from Indie development. I suspect future popular games will come from people willing to take risks, and not so much concerned about what they "have to lose", but what "they have to gain."

Re:The bottom line is parent's don't care (1)

ninjagin (631183) | more than 6 years ago | (#21913080)

Great points. As a PC gamer who plays with a regular group, I've always wished that club licensing was an option -- one physical copy, loadable on 5 machines, for a little less than the price of four individual copies. Having to login online, plus having the physical media in the drive, every time I want to play either a standalone or LAN game is a real pain in the patoot.

Re:The bottom line is parent's don't care (1)

JrnyFan (1179129) | more than 6 years ago | (#21915468)

the individual licensing is a great idea, I know that with my current group of friends (50+) a dozen of us have purchased COD4 at various times over the past 2 months and a general license would have helped with adoption and made infinity ward and the rest a lot more money from our group for example. Maybe an online purchasing option is something they should develop for games, every business license that I use can be obtained that way. As far as the frustration of having to put the physical media in the drive, there are fixed .exe's that you can obtain...the legalities of such if you own the game can be debated but it a process that I ascribe to as I have found that no manufacturer of games likes to replace disks that have become worn over time with constant placing in optical drive trays....and why would they? they just try to force you to buy a new copy of the game, gives them another $30-$50.

Re:The bottom line is parent's don't care (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21913642)

In our house, it was generally plain corn flakes or plain rice krispies. We were allowed sugar cereals only once in a blue moon, as a treat. My mom disdained other moms who let their kids eat them. Once when I was four, I asked my great-aunt what that white stuff was and could I taste it - she let me taste the sugar, and I said "Wow, that's really good, I hope my mom lets me have some of that sometime!"

End result? In college I was OBSESSED with sugary cereals because they'd been so taboo as a kid. I'd live on cocoa krispies for days at a time, literally. I still buy about half sugary cereals and half high-fiber cereals.

Every parenting decision can backfire. What works for one kid doesn't work for their twin brother. In the end, it's rare to actually screw a kid up so much that they don't manage to become a functioning member of society.

Re:The bottom line is parent's don't care (1)

vimh42 (981236) | more than 6 years ago | (#21915788)

"Today's parents just suck at parenting.

Please tell me you're a parent. There is nothing I hate more than some idiot spouting 'back in my day get off my lawn' bull shit. You may as well just say 'People today suck at being people'.

Maybe I misread the mod? Maybe it was supposed to read Score:5, Sarcasm?

"Kids used to watch too much TV instead of playing outside."

Ok, now I know your post was sarcasm. We all know that people who post on Slashdot don't go outside.

Re:The bottom line is parent's don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21911140)

"Parents that truly care take the time to look at the back of the box"

Where does this time come from? We can say the same thing about umpteen hundred billion things parents *should do* where does that leave time for parents to have a personal life?

Re:The bottom line is parent's don't care (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21911760)

I call bullshit. If you're already at the store and buying the game for your kids (which I assume you are, because otherwise where is your kid getting this game from? do you even know where/who your kid is with?), you have the time to see if this game involves killing people, and what the rating is. When you're browsing for films do you just ignore the back of the box? Too busy trying to beat everyone to the checkout? This is one of the very basic things that parents should *definitely* do. Basically, if you've chosen to be a parent, then your personal life comes *after* your responsibility to look after your child. If you aren't prepared to live up to that responsibility, then for fuck's sake, don't have children. No - I'm not a parent - I just am not an irresponsible idiot either. I wouldn't even get a pet unless I knew I was going to be able to give it the due care and attention it deserves for the rest of its life.

Re:The bottom line is parent's don't care (1)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 6 years ago | (#21913112)

"Parents that truly care take the time to look at the back of the box"

Where does this time come from? We can say the same thing about umpteen hundred billion things parents *should do* where does that leave time for parents to have a personal life?

There are several things wrong with this:

1. If they have the time to complain to congress, perhaps they could have used that free block of time to check the back of the box.

2. Parents pay plenty of attention to the ratings of movies and TV. Checking the back of the box takes about the same amount of time. In fact, since movies and TV, at $0-$10, are purchased far more frequently than $60 games, checking the game ratings would take considerably less time overall.

3. Media is often lumped together in one category. If parents pay attention to "explicit lyrics" on CDs and R-ratings on movies, it's easy to understand that games fall into roughly the same category and therefore should also be checked for a rating. This simple association helps parents understand the need to check in a very short time.

4. Unlike the confusing instructions that it takes to operate the game consoles themselves, and unlike the pain in the ass it is to set up the V-chip, looking at the back of the game box is a breeze, and therefore is far less time consuming. Since the ratings are briefly explained on each box, there is very little extra effort necessary to get accustomed to understand the ratings.

Simply put, parents should have a blanket policy of giving a brief inspection to any media their kids will be accessing in the house. If you believe you would be a bad parent if you let our 10-year old kids watch Pulp-fiction or Fight Club, and you take the time to keep these away from your children, then you would be just as bad of a parent to not look at the back of the box and decide Grand Theft Auto or Manhunt, is just not right for little Billy. If you're too busy to do this simple thing then perhaps you should reconsider having children at all. Or maybe just decide that it's ok for Billy to do anything he damn well wants.

Re:The bottom line is parent's don't care (1)

xhrit (915936) | more than 6 years ago | (#21913884)

Screening full metal jacket changed my 10 year old's mind about wanting to be in teh army.

Re:The bottom line is parent's don't care (1)

C0rinthian (770164) | more than 6 years ago | (#21915282)

"Parents that truly care take the time to look at the back of the box"

Where does this time come from? We can say the same thing about umpteen hundred billion things parents *should do* where does that leave time for parents to have a personal life?
When you have a kid, you shouldn't expect to have a personal life anymore. If someone can't make that dedication, they shouldn't be raising children.

Re:The bottom line is parent's don't care (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#21911166)

Parents that truly care take the time to look at the back of the box, read the descriptions and check the ESRB sticker.
I agree with this, and unfortunately I've witnessed the other side.

Case in point, there was an independent game shop in our Mall, and this grandmother comes in. She's looking around, and walks over to the clerk behind the desk.
"I'm looking for a present for my grandson. He wants a new video game."
"Okay, what type does he like to play."
"He said anything that was 'rated-m' would be okay."
"...how old is he?"
"Twelve."
"Do you know what a 'rated-m' game is?"
"No."

He was then kind enough to explain the ESRB rating system to her, saying that if she felt comfortable buying the game for her grandson it would be sold to her without a problem, but also suggested that she look around herself and find a game she would be comfortable with.

Unfortunately, this store went under when the Gamestop moved into the mall.

So we counter a biased "report card" (3, Informative)

n6kuy (172098) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909902)

... with someone who's completely biased the other way?

OK, so she's a "mom", but that doesn't make her the spokesperson for all moms.

Re:So we counter a biased "report card" (5, Interesting)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909988)

She is, however, far more interested in reading about the game ratings than 99% of moms out there.

Most moms think "he wants this game, so I'll get it for him".

My old man retired from the computer industry to work at walmart (cause it's the law).
He constantly turns away moms trying to buy M rated games for their kids. He explains that the game is rated M and it's not meant for minors.

Most moms say "oh, it's for me", because most moms are bad parents.

I commend her for taking the time to read about games and their ratings.

Re:So we counter a biased "report card" (2, Funny)

Hittman (81760) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910362)

Most moms say "oh, it's for me", because most moms are bad parents.

At least most moms who shop at Wal-Mart.

Re:So we counter a biased "report card" (1, Troll)

IDontAgreeWithYou (829067) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910588)

Well, there's two problems with your post. First of all, your "old man" has no business telling adults what games to buy regardless of who they are buying them for. He can certainly stop kids from buying them, but not adults. Second, I'm not really sure who made you the supreme judge on parenting skills. We're talking about video games here. No matter what the rating is, it's still a video game. I'm more worried about parents who have done such a bad job raising their kids that we need to be afraid that a video game is going to set them on a crime spree. Just my two cents.

Re:So we counter a biased "report card" (1)

DRAGONWEEZEL (125809) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910904)

He doesn't STOP them, what he is doing is helping to make an informed decision. If more people did that at wallmart, they'd have a much better rep! It's the same reason you turn people off of a MAC or PC or Linux based on what the users intentions are.

In a thread not too long ago, I posted how I try to turn clients away from cheap laptops. They never work as expected, and it will be too slow, save your $ and get the one you really want.

If you went to a car dealership, and told the salesman you do a lot of hiking and fishing, and he trys to sell you a kia sephia, He hasn't done his job. Same for the guy who try's to sell you a hummer for commuting back and forth from anywhere to LA, or Anywhere to Seattle.

Re:So we counter a biased "report card" (3, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 6 years ago | (#21911004)

Well, there's two problems with your post. First of all, it's transparently obvious he wasn't attempting to be a linebacker tackling some mom, but rather was merely pointing out that, as is reasonable, she was probably buying it for some kid, and that the M meant it probably was not a good choice, as far as quality parenting skills go. The mom could buy it for herself, for her kid, or go get a Winnie the Pooh game instead. Second, "it's still [just] a video game" is like saying, "It's still just a movie", even though it's Scarface. Yes, that's what parenting skills are about: checking out what your kids are doing and making adjustments to it as necessary. These ratings are supposed to help, but it's clear nobody's "tested" them with respect to actual game-illiterate parents. A good portion of parents with "quality parenting skills", who are thus checking out and relying on these ratings, might have a problem finding out more about "Call to Duty" or some un-numbered "Conan" game.

She's pointing this stuff out, that many of the intended users of this list, video game-illiterate parents, won't know enough to correct the errors and ommissions. Think if someone published a Christmas gift list of "quality knitting needles", and you went to get the #3 needle for your gramma, but the style name was off, and didn't include a model number. Should you "know better, you poor-knitting-skilled buffoon"? Or should the writers of the list have analyzed their target audience better?

I assure you, the audience for this list is neither teenagers, nor young men in their 20s or 30s.

Re:So we counter a biased "report card" (1)

nickj6282 (896871) | more than 6 years ago | (#21912358)

I want to relate some semi-personal experiences that tie-in with your post.

In the fall and winter of 2001, my (now ex) girlfriend and I were living in Minneapolis and she worked at one of the busier Best Buy stores (Minnetonka for those who know the area and care). She worked in the "Media Department" which is BB's term for movies, music, games, etc.

All through the holiday shopping season, constantly, parents would come ask for this game or that game for their children. My girlfriend, when asked for the title of a non-kid-friendly game, would immediately ask the age of the child. Then, she would explain the specifics of that title and if the child was very young, suggest an age-appropriate title.

Never once did a parent complain. Maybe it wasn't her place to suggest as some people seem to think. But if someone doesn't educate the parents, then who will? I'm sure Jen's actions led to plenty of pissed off 8-year-olds who unwrapped Fantavision instead of GTA, but hopefully the parents will know better next time than to just buy little Johnny and Sally whatever games they ask for.

The root cause of this is, of course, that many older adults see video games as an activity for kids, rather than an activity for adults (as is the case with many M-rated games) or kids and adults together.

Re:So we counter a biased "report card" (1)

IDontAgreeWithYou (829067) | more than 6 years ago | (#21912480)

I don't have a problem with a salesperson making a suggestion. The original post implied (to me at least) that the salesperson was refusing to sell the game to them. It appears that is not the case. My anecdote is that I went to see the South Park movie in the theater and the ticket girl tried to explain to a mother that the movie was very adult oriented (she had two kids with her both looked to be around 10). The mother was very offended and bought the tickets anyway. 10 minutes into the movie she quickly escorted her kids out of the theater. So again, I don't have a problem with suggestions. But when the original poster said "turned away" i took that to mean he wouldn't sell it to them.

Re:So we counter a biased "report card" (1)

GoodbyeBlueSky1 (176887) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910640)

Most moms say "oh, it's for me", because most moms are bad parents.
Well, aren't we a judgmental little prick. The rating system is meant as a guideline for parents, not a moral yardstick. If a parent decides their child can play M-rated games, fine. If a parent doesn't care what games their kids play, that's fine too. Nothing wrong either with parents who restrict their kids from playing T or M rated games. It's a matter of choice.

But you judge people as "bad parents" for making a certain choice. Explain your logic please. You must be one of those "let's whitewash the whole world because I get offended easily" types.

Re:So we counter a biased "report card" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21910930)

"You must be one of those "let's whitewash t"he whole world because I get offended easily types."

*cough*

"Well, aren't we a judgmental little prick. "

make that hypocritical ;-)

Re:So we counter a biased "report card" (4, Interesting)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21913826)

My mom and I had this discussion/argument over winter break. She was trying to say how my little brother lied to her about the contents of Vice City when he was 13 (he's now 17) and if she'd had any idea what was in it she never would have let him get it at that age, etc etc. She was getting all indignant about how he deceived her, was such a sneaky kid, etc.

I asked if she saw the rating on the game, and she said yes, but he said that he'd played it at friends' houses and told her it was just about blah blah blah... I cut her off and asked, if he'd pointed out an R-rated movie, claiming he'd seen it at a friends' house and it wasn't that bad, would she just believe that and let him watch it with no supervision? Well of course not, she said! Luckily, at that point she had the sense to get a bit sheepish and let me rant to her about how the video game industry wouldn't be under such fire from lawmakers if parents would pay even a small amount of attention to the freaking ratings like they do to movie ratings.

I actually remember the incident in question, because I was home for a vacation soon after he got the game. I remember my sister and I watching him do something involving prostitutes in the game, and running to our mom saying "Uhhhhh.... why are you letting him play this?" and her original indignation when she realized what was going on, and the original version of the same argument wherein I pointed out to her THEN that it was an M-rated game and it was her own fault...

Re:So we counter a biased "report card" (1)

rtechie (244489) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917158)

She was trying to say how my little brother lied to her about the contents of Vice City when he was 13 (he's now 17) and if she'd had any idea what was in it she never would have let him get it at that age, etc
Let me ask you a better question: Do you have any reason to believe your little brother was scarred for life because he played Vice City at age 13? Has he started running over (real) prostitutes for fun? I'm being serious.

Coleen Hannon reveals her real bias in this very interesting quote:

"The teens who want to play something with action in it are the ones that are in the danger zone and this list does nothing for them."

And I was reading Mark Saltzman's (GamerDad) review of God of War 2 that had this bit:

"The original God of War was one of the most violent, sexual, and intense old-school beat em up games ever made. Lots of fun, but filled to the brim with content not appropriate for kids. God of War II carries on this tradition proudly. Parents beware: your kids know about this game and they want it. Trust me, they're aware and they want it."

They clearly understand that it's not little kids "at risk" from violent games largely because those kids have LITTLE INTEREST in those games. This is an absolutely critical point that must be reiterated. Little kids have NO INTEREST in violent or sexual media. It's perfectly okay to show hardcore porn to little kids because they simply don't CARE about it. So, what they're trying to say in a roundabout way is:

Teenaged boys can't handle videogame (and film) sexuality and violence.

I have a big problem with this assumption in that it's obviously completely false. Teenaged boys will not see the violence in GTA III or God of War and act it out. The very notion is retarded. So what is the actual risk here? Teenagers are at the point in their development where they are seriously questioning arbitrary limits on their behavior and the JUDGMENT (this is critical) of their parents. Parents are trying to limit their teenager's EXPOSURE to different materials in the vain hope that it will make their teenagers less interested in sex and violence and less apt to question their authority. Teenagers are interested in sex and violence because they're HUMAN and no amount of sheltering will change that. Quite the contrary, sheltered teenagers are MORE attracted to sexual and violent media because of the novelty. Teenagers question authority because they're TEENAGERS, that's what they do.

Re:So we counter a biased "report card" (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910032)

It's more of someone who sits on the line of Gaming and being a parent. Yes it's biased but you also get parental input/insight. Such as the example in the summary, that's a parents concern not a gamers need for correctness on the title of a game.

Re:So we counter a biased "report card" (3, Insightful)

Mr_eX9 (800448) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910378)

Exactly. It's reverse ad hominem to think that being a mom justifies anything about her argument.

Re:So we counter a biased "report card" (1)

The Iso (1088207) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916050)

That's an ad verecundiam.

Re:So we counter a biased "report card" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916838)

Yeah, but the slashdot mods' e-peens get hard when they see "ad hominem" because it makes them feel like they can actually evaluate an argument critically. Free "+1 I agree" karma.

Isn't that how it's done? (1)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910534)

Isn't that what constitutes "balance" in this partisan, post-Fairness Doctrine world?

Re:So we counter a biased "report card" (1)

Troy (3118) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910718)

I believe she addressed this when she discussed how different families have different values, and no one can dictate what content parents should allow in their homes.

Now clearly, she (like anyone) has some bias. She's nice enough to make it fairly obvious in her writing. It is the reader's job to filter it out.

Re:So we counter a biased "report card" (1)

shalla (642644) | more than 6 years ago | (#21914940)

How is she "completely biased the other way"?

She says that the guide may be well-intentioned but is not well put together. She agrees with them that there are some games that children should not be allowed to play without supervision. She points out that restricting the sale of M-rated games to minors does not impact whether or not they are played at a friends house or at home if a parent purchases the item. So rather than restricting the sale, we should work on educating parents how to research titles--and do it by giving them accurate information.

I don't think that counts as being biased the other way. Biased the other way would be something more along the lines of someone saying that kids should have access to any games they want because if you shelter them, they'll just go wild later. And besides, they played GSA 2 at the age of 6 and they turned out just fine, thank you...

You don't have to agree with this mom, but acting like she's the complete opposite isn't accurate. She's educated about the games and advocates parents playing with their children and being informed about the games before condoning them.

Wha? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21909954)

If this guy is a Mom then don't come yelling that his kid is messed up cause of video games.

"Real mom" (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909996)

The link is an annoying mix of nitpicking and posturing passed off as substantive correction, but the silly, obnoxious "real mom" spin on it seems to be purely Zonk's invention. It doesn't do her any favors.

(I'd complain about the irritating use of "mom" but nowadays I'm just grateful for any adult who doesn't say "mommy".)

Re:"Real mom" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21910216)

What's this irritating use of "mom"?

Ok, this is a joke right! (3, Insightful)

haplo21112 (184264) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910018)

First Off:

"Retailers must return to the level of compliance in previous years" - Ok, lets see when I was a Babbages(Now Gamestop) Manager we didn't enforce anything. You have $59.99 to buy this game here is your copy. You know what - thats the way it should be. Your the parent pay attention to what your kid is buying and playing.

Then:

The list of games to avoid, thats a joke too, at least without context. My Daughter is 10 weeks old, but lets scale this up and say she was 10 Years Old instead. I'll go an record as saying several of those games I would let her play when she is a 10yo I don't see a problem. The Half-Life franchise, Gears of War, Call Of Duty and several others I'll let her play those from the moment she can point the mouse in the right direction. She will know the difference between shooting someone on a computer and really shooting someone. Thats my job as a parent to teach her that. Its not some out side random organization's job to dictate that to my child. Now its also important to note that she will not have a computer/game system (or TV for that matter) in her own room until she is 14 at least. Therefore the only systems she will have access too will be in shared and/or public spaces in our house. We will know what she is doing.

"Mediawise Recommend Games for Children and Teens"

Not a shooter among them interesting...guess what shooters are fun, and they always have been Atari 2600 when I was kid had a shooter came with the system it was called "Combat" funny that...all those games of combat and I'm not twisted warped or on death row.

MOD PARENT DOWN - misquoted (0)

illumin8 (148082) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910450)

Parent seems to think it might be funny to misquote the article for some kind of troll purposes. Read the original article because the author didn't say anything like that.

MOD PARENT DOWN - idiot (1)

Thanatos69 (993924) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910760)

Ummm, those funny little lines around words are called quotation marks, the mark a "quote". If you look at the "quotes" and do a search based on those in the article you will find those "quotes". Perhaps you are too important to read the article but important enough for everyone to listen... You should me modded down for wasting our time.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN - idiot (0, Troll)

illumin8 (148082) | more than 6 years ago | (#21912412)

Learn to use tags, idiot. Blockquote tag is there for a reason. Your use of language, where you say "first they say", "then:" makes it look like the second paragraph is in the article. No, it's not in the article at all. She doesn't say she has a 10 year old daughter and she would play shooters with her.

And, if you really would play rated M shooters with your 10 year old daughter you're a terrible parent as well.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN - idiot (1)

Thanatos69 (993924) | more than 6 years ago | (#21912956)

If you look directly above this comment, you will notice a nickname preceded by the word, "By." Now, scroll up a bit and look for the same thing in the original comment that you posted a reply to. Shockingly, you may notice that the nicknames are different.

Continuing on, I see two quotes that are from the article that is referenced:

Retailers must return to the level of compliance in previous years


Mediawise Recommend Games for Children and Teens


The rest is babbling on behalf of the OP.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN - idiot (1)

Ykant (318168) | more than 6 years ago | (#21913448)

Excuse me, did you just say something to the effect of, "It's that guy's fault I can't read properly"?

Re:Ok, this is a joke right! (1)

cheros (223479) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910562)

she will not have a computer/game system (or TV for that matter) in her own room until she is 14 at least

I hate to break it to you, but you strike me as a new parent. You're forgetting that (a) she will visit others who may not be so strict, and that is ignoring that (b) she will have pestered you to death WAY before then to have her own laptop because all her friends have it. I agree with it being in sight, but I suggest you plan a little bit ahead and expect that control not to work so well.

Having said that, by the time she's 14 you will have given up any idea of control anyway and will have realised that the one thing you MUST do is educate. What you won't be able to do is control, and IMHO that is not as bad as it seems. Your job is to make sure she doesn't fall that hard, but only the bumps are educational. Keeping her away from danger is actually achieving the opposite as she won't develop street smarts.

Ironically, you may have learned this lesson already, but may not have realised it. Try keeping her hand away from anything hot. She will continue to reach for something until she burns herself - your job is to divert that grabbing to a radiator pipe which is hot enough to warn and hurt, but not hot enough to burn. The rest of your life is pretty much like that, and I suggest you enjoy it. She'll be 18 before you know it..

Re:Ok, this is a joke right! (1)

haplo21112 (184264) | more than 6 years ago | (#21911580)

I pestered my Parents for lots of things, that I never got, I think I learned that lesson from my parents and can successfully resist. I also learned to educate as well as restrict, I know I can do that. I know she will be exposed to influences I can't control. I was exposed to them myself, but I had parents that informed me of why they was bad and I knew enough to resist them, not absorb them, Ignore them, and walk away from them.

I know that I cannot keep her entirely from them, but when she is my view I will, When she is not she will know why she isn't allowed them when she is.

Re:Ok, this is a joke right! (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 6 years ago | (#21911000)

I really, REALLY didn't get the point of those two lists in the original report, anyway.

Here is a list of the top 10 M-Rated games that aren't suitable for little kids

Here is a list of the top 9 E-Rated (and, curiously, 1 T-Rated) games that _are_, oddly enough, more suitable.

Well knock me sideways with a tickling stick, I didn't expect that to be the case.

I'm the same as you (except that I have a 3-year-old son, instead of a 10-week-old daughter) and will exercise personal judgement as to whether or not he will be ready to play games with violence, gore etc. in them when the time comes, just like I will with films. But the ESRB guidelines are a hell of a lot better than nothing.

My future with kids and games (4, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910242)

My girlfriend and I were discussing this a couple days ago, actually. We are both avid gamers (and also both 23). She is more of a classic gamer (Atari, NES, etc.) and prefers platformers, puzzle games, and horror-style FPS (her current favourite to watch is Bioshock...she doesn't like playing scary games, but LOVES watching them be played). I am more of an "in the now" gamer (although I've been going through my back-catalogue of N64 games lately) and prefer RTS, RPG, and RPG/Shooter hybrids.

Both of us have no problem (and quite enjoy) violent video games. What happens when we have a kid?

The same thing that happend to us when we were little. Both her parents and my parents would ensure that we could discern the difference between the fantasy in a game and the reality in life...as long as we did that, there were no restrictions insofar as what we watched or what we played.

I imagine I'm going to do the same with my kid. Naturally, since both of us are regular gamers, we would prolly know what is in their games because we will have played them. Don't get me wrong, they aren't going to be in a Dukematch when they are five, but if at age 12 they want to play GTA7 and can prove to me that they know it is fantasy (and that they know what would happen if they did such things in real life), then they can play it to their heart's content. I would rather my kids be exposed to sex and violence early on in life enough to be able to look at it objectively and not be suprised when they are older and suddenly see something violent and react in the same way that most of the sheep do. I don't want them to be sheltered, I want show them that the world is a violent place, but I don't want to have to show them using national media or ogrish.com or some place like that. Video games make for the perfect medium to introduce children to modern day real issues while not succumbing them to all the bullshit that usually goes along with it.

After all, would you rather your kids learn about sex and violence WITHOUT you by their side?

Re:My future with kids and games (1)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#21911466)

I want show them that the world is a violent place, but I don't want to have to show them using national media or ogrish.com or some place like that.

Show them the reality of our violent world via video games (as opposed to supposedly factual media) and then expect them to be able to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

Sounds like a great plan.

P.S - FWIW I agree with the spirit and message of your post. I just couldn't help but point out the irony.

Re:My future with kids and games (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#21911736)

Believe me, I know the irony is there:-)

I suppose the best way I could explain it is like this...because I was exposed to virtual violence at such a young age (watched my first R rated movie when I was 7, played doom when I was 9) I learned to recognize that it was fake very early on. When I was 13, a friend of mine broke his leg when we were playing (American) football one summer. Bone sticking out and everything. EVERYONE was going crazy, cause...well, cause it was nasty and most of them hadn't been exposed to something like that before, real or virtual.

Because I was desensitized to violence (i.e. I could look at it objectively and for what it was without being sidetracked by the EW NASTY GROSS feelings most people would get) I was able to keep him calm and get help...I didn't hesitate for a moment when it happened, and at no point in time was I distracted by bone protruding from his leg. (Something similar happened when I was a mechanic and a coworker lost a couple fingers from a metal radiator fan...I believe I've posted that story on here a couple times)

I know it seems funny to try to get someone to objectively view real world violence by using fake violence, but fake violence is MUCH easier to get used to at first. Being used to fake violence makes real violence all that much easier to deal with.

Re:My future with kids and games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21913284)

Both of us have no problem (and quite enjoy) violent video games. What happens when we have a kid?

That's the beauty of it. Now somebody in your family has a chance of seeing Duke Nukem Forever released!

Re:My future with kids and games (1)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 6 years ago | (#21913320)

"Both of us have no problem (and quite enjoy) violent video games. What happens when we have a kid?"

Probably the same thing most people do who enjoy adult entertainments but then have kids (drugs, alcohol, sex, pornography, etc.): if you're responsible, you're going to be awed by how impressionable and vulnerable this little mind is. You're going to realize with shock, and not a little trepidation, that you could essentially make this kid do anything, eventually, and moreover they'd accept it as NORMAL (at least until school age or more likely teenage).

Therefore you're going to insulate your children from your 'hobby'; if necessary, set aside your hobby in favor of their best interest (because it's not about you anymore, right?). Then, as you raise them to be intelligent, thoughtful, responsible actors in society, you'll probably loosen the reins little by little so that they are exposed to your preferred lifestyle, and they can learn about it even if not really participate.

Once they are near-adults, you can essentially then go back to whatever you used to be (if you still find it interesting) and they will be equipped with the moral, intellectual, and character traits that allow them to make an informed decision if they want to emulate you or not.

Pretty much anything else is horribly, horrifically selfish.

Re:My future with kids and games (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#21913538)

Pretty much anything else is horribly, horrifically selfish.


I don't know about that...I got into the same things my parents did...video games, drugs, etc. As far as video games were concerned, they knew I could just go over to a friend's house and play whatever I wanted (which I did), so instead they would buy those games and then play them with me. If something violent or something sexual in nature came up in said game, they would pause it and talk to me about it.

Ditto with drugs. When I turned 14, my dad sat me down (this was after finding pot in my room) and said "Well, you've been bit by the drug bug...don't worry, your mother and I were bit by it too. Stay safe, don't do it ANYWHERE but at home or at someone's house who you trust implicitly, don't do anything that you have to snort or inject, and above all...enjoy yourself."

I smoke cannabis almost daily, and have since I was about 16 (smoked it daily, that is) I have done shrooms, LSD, you name it. Just like he said, nothing that has to be snorted or injected. I've never lost a job, I've never not payed the rent (it's actually budgeted into my finances just like as if it were a car payment), I have never been arrested, and I have never done dumb shit (gotten injured, stole, etc.) I have a full time job that pays well and has good benefits, I have my own car that I payed for with money that I earned, and am generally well liked by all those that know me.

My parents taught me how to work hard and play hard...but above all else, they taught me to work and play SAFELY.

Now, I've grown up to be just like them...successful, VERY happy, reliable, and safe. What more could a parent want out of a child?

Re:My future with kids and games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21916622)

"...as long as we did that, there were no restrictions insofar as what we watched or what we played."
Why don't I believe that? So you're saying that at 7 years old, you saw pornos, and slasher flicks?

They probably taught you the difference between Road Runner & Coyote's antics and real-life, but I seriously doubt that's all they did! They also shielded you from seeing and experiencing inappropriate things!

Re:My future with kids and games (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918398)

Porno no, Slasher flicks yes. Halloween was (ironically) my first R rated movie, and it was indeed right around that age.

There were no restrictions meaning that if we asked to watch something, they would sit down and watch it with us. Naturally, at that point, porno wasn't really on my mind. They never OFFERED to show us things that most parents would think were inappropriate, but they never said no if we asked either. Besides, my family has always been rather...open about
sex. I got "the talk" when I was 12, and was always allowed to have girls stay over...we had a silent agreement. If my door was closed and they knew that a girl was over, they stayed downstairs.

They probably taught you the difference between Road Runner & Coyote's antics and real-life, but I seriously doubt that's all they did! They also shielded you from seeing and experiencing inappropriate things!


Yes, they did exactly that actually. There was one thing I wasn't allowed to watch, and that was the news. That's right, the news. Why you ask? Because of the way it was presented...done up so as to get ratings, not inform people. I got updates on what was happening in the world every week. My mom would put together a little two page thing that had all the major headlines on it. If I found something that I wanted to know more about, she would tell me exactly what happened. Nothing like "oh, well a bad man went into a bank and he wouldn't let the nice people leave", she would say "a man with a gun tried to rob a bank, and held the people inside hostage. The police got him, but unfortunately one of the hostages died." Straight, to the point, no bullshit, no opinion, no childish talk, just exactly what occurred (they got all their news from BBS's in those days, before you ask.)

I am quite happy with what they did when I was young, and I turned out to be a very well mannered, responsible, reliable, and happy person. As I said before, what more could parents want out of their child?

Re:My future with kids and games (1)

jesterzog (189797) | more than 6 years ago | (#21918572)

I would rather my kids be exposed to sex and violence early on in life enough to be able to look at it objectively and not be suprised when they are older and suddenly see something violent and react in the same way that most of the sheep do.

I'll focus on violence in this post. Maybe they exist, but I've never known a child to be suddenly shocked through being exposed to a violent video game. I'm sure violent video games would influence children to think differently about certain things, and I have thought that maybe people get confused quite a lot from being unguided about violence in both video games and TV though, both children and adults.

If you want to expose your kids to violence, shouldn't it at least be realistic so as to be properly educational? There's a huge difference between being exposed to violence in the form of running around the levels of a FPS game compared with being exposed to violence in the form of seeing how many Iraqi civilians get blown up every month as a result of all the conflict and political decisions around the world. The first isn't really violence at all -- it's complete fantasy with no direct consequences that's designed to make people think it's violence.

I definitely don't want to advocate violence, but the world really is a violent place as soon as people get out of their sheltered lives and I think it's better for everyone if there's a better understanding of what violence actually is, rather than sheltering people from the real violence and substituting it with lots of pretend violence..

Missing... (5, Insightful)

JMZero (449047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21910472)

I've spent some time in game stores, and overheard a good few conversations. The best parents ask the salespeople what happens in the game. And the better salespeople can give the kind of information the parent wants:

"Some people fight each other. Like punching and kicking. There's not really so much blood, but the girls wear very revealing outfits."
"You skateboard around doing tricks. The crashes are pretty brutal, and there's some crude jokes."
"You collect and control little monsters that fight and stuff. You don't actually see them fight, you just kind of read what they did."

And I think that's what's missing from the ESRB web site - they don't give the kind of context many parents need to evaluate a game. Now I think it's reasonably clear a young kid shouldn't be playing either Dead or Alive Extreme 2 or Mass Effect (and both are M rated, which seems right) but look at the content descriptors:

Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes, Simulated Gambling
Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes, Blood, Language, Violence

From just that, you might think these are comparable games. Compare that to the information you get from a synopsis:

"You ogle bikini girls and buy them bikinis. That's the whole point of the game."
"You buy guns and shoot aliens. In the story, there's a love scene where you can see a girl's bum for a second."

Whatever you may think of the relative offensiveness of that content, I think that's information a parent needs to have in order to make a decision. These games' content are very different.

Re:Missing... (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 6 years ago | (#21911392)

First of all, you're exactly right. I've never understood why we think that the 'maturity level' of an entire game (or for that matter, movie) could be summed up in half a dozen stock words.

Ironically, the 'report card' is a perfect example of the same thing. Do eight letters sum up the entire state of the gaming industry's rating and controls system? I kind of doubt it.

But hey--a big M on a box is much easier to make a decision on than actually having to read a sentence or two!

Re:Missing... (1)

Sketch (2817) | more than 6 years ago | (#21913518)

The funny part about this discussion is that this is much more descriptive than simply G/PG/PG-13/R/NC-17, which doesn't seem to be causing any major backlash...

Re:Missing... (1)

Darth (29071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21911660)


Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes, Simulated Gambling
Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes, Blood, Language, Violence


looks pretty similar to the descriptions on movie ratings.


From just that, you might think these are comparable games.


One has gambling, the other has violence and profanity. I'm not sure why you would think they are comparable.

To get context on a movie's content, people typically watch a trailer or read reviews. The same can be done for games. Most game companies are providing trailers for their games now, and even the ones that don't have a web page with a synopsis. Even if the trailer or review is biased, it will still give you an idea of what kind of game it is.

I don't accept that anyone can walk into a game store, buy a game named after a felony that has an M rating, and turn around and legitimately say "i had no idea".

I agree that good sales people should be able to help parents make good purchasing decisions...I just dont think the one word description needs to be on the ESRB rating. (you'd think the game box would provide that context itself anyway)

Re:Missing... (3, Insightful)

JMZero (449047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21912450)

I'm not sure why you would think they are comparable.

My intended point was that the sexual content - described as "Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes" for both - is of a very different nature in the two games. I didn't search the list to find two very different games with an exactly identical list of descriptors, but I'm sure such a pair could be found, and I imagine you get my point.

I just dont think the one word description needs to be on the ESRB rating.

To be clear, mostly I was thinking about the ESRB site and how it could be more useful. Currently it shows only rating and a list of descriptors. I think it should also contain or link to a synopsis (or trailer, or site, or something) so that parents have something more substantive to evaluate, and can learn about video game content from a central, trustable source.

And, yes, I do think this would be a valuable service - a lot of parents, especially non-gamers, are going to have more difficulty judging the content of a game than the content of a movie or book, and could use the help. Sure, there's plenty of info on games on the web already - but it is serving a lot of different purposes (advertisement, discussion of gameplay or quality, etc..) and may be hard to find for the people who need it most. The game box, while likely very helpful for some games, isn't always on hand - and again isn't really geared towards giving this kind of info.

Re:Missing... (1)

Darth (29071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21913420)

To be clear, mostly I was thinking about the ESRB site and how it could be more useful. Currently it shows only rating and a list of descriptors. I think it should also contain or link to a synopsis (or trailer, or site, or something) so that parents have something more substantive to evaluate, and can learn about video game content from a central, trustable source.

I think the ESRB site for a game including a synopsis of the game and a link to a game trailer, if one is available, would be useful and convenient, but i wonder if they are worried about the mutability of the games. The ESRB might be unwilling to provide more detailed information for a product that can be altered with patches and user mods. If their summary goes out of date, it is not inconceivable that someone would sue them for misrepresenting the content of the game. Jack Thompson already does that with the small amount of information they provide now.

And, yes, I do think this would be a valuable service - a lot of parents, especially non-gamers, are going to have more difficulty judging the content of a game than the content of a movie or book, and could use the help.

I agree that that would be a useful service and convenient, I'm just not sure the ESRB are the ones to provide it. I would expect the media to provide that kind of service similar to movie and book reviews, imdb, and yahoo movies.
Unfortunately, the gaming news is a corrupted environment whose revenue is too closely tied to the products they review. Until computer gaming becomes mainstream enough that newspapers have a review section like they do for movies and books, it will always be more difficult for parents to know what the content of a game is.

Perhaps this is a service that a group like Consumer Reports could provide (they already do some software).

Re:Missing... (1)

lord sibn (649162) | more than 6 years ago | (#21913410)

"You collect and control little monsters that fight and stuff. You don't actually see them fight, you just kind of read what they did."
That sounds suspiciously like Pokemon, which we all know is a gateway game to harder games which will ruin our children's minds forever. It may start with Pokemon, but where does it go from there? Nintendogs? Animal Crossing? From there, it is indeed a short hop, skip and jump to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City or Doom, and we all know what comes after that...

A few silly things about game ratings... (2)

grocer (718489) | more than 6 years ago | (#21911652)

1) I can't remember the last time I saw a rating on a book...any book...the last I checked, if your 12 or 13 year old has a library card, they can go check out Stephen King, Clive Barker, H.P. Lovecraft, Edgar Allen Poe, V.C. Andrews...all kinds of books depicting violence and sex without anybody saying much of anything.
2) Age is a number, it may provide a yardstick for maturity but it doesn't have a 1:1 correlation to it...just because someone made it to 20, doesn't necessarily mean that should any more or less freedom than a 14 year old.
3) As an individual, it's my responsibility to evaluate whether or not something is an acceptable risk. I know I evaluate all the games my children are allowed to play and determine yes or no based on their maturity and the content of the game. Ratings provide a false sense of security and don't usually tell me anything until I play the game. There are some pretty obvious ones but football is based on the principle of pummeling the other guy to stop the ball yet all of the games I've seen have been rated E...with no-one bothering to acknowledge the violence.
4) Thank you puritans for managing to mess with American society 300 years later! That's so swell!

Re:A few silly things about game ratings... (1)

Tony (765) | more than 6 years ago | (#21912058)

Thank you puritans for managing to mess with American society 300 years later! That's so swell!

It's a common American legacy. It's actually getting better. Fuck, just 40 years ago I'd get in trouble for saying, "Fuck." Now it's common in literature and movies and whatnot. Shit, even South Park got away with saying, "Shit." Quite a few times.

Violence? I just went to see Sweeney Todd last night. Victorian Englanders had *extraordinarily* high blood pressure. Who ever thought throat-slashing and secret cannibalism and a bunch of non-singing actors in a musical could be so funny?

It's getting better. Really. There's just a bunch of pussies in America who think we're all in eminent danger of being shot by a FPS-playing high-school kid, or blown up by MS-Flight Simulator-playing terrorists. I think the Jack Thompsons of the world really do think they're saving civilization. Or maybe it's just the way their little Napoleon complexes come out.

But really, it's getting better. Really.

Parent's responsibility (3, Informative)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 6 years ago | (#21911762)

The problem I've observed with too many parents is that they try to hard to be their children's buddy or they don't want to come off as uncool. So they wont even venture to ask about a game at the risk of coming off as a prude. Too many parents also apparently can't be bothered to look into what their kids are playing.

Earlier in the year when the media has spun itself into a frenzy, yet again, over violence in games they ran a story about a mother who was shocked to discover that the game she had purchased for her son, Grand Theft Auto, was violent. As if the name wasn't enough of a tip off to questionable subject matter she didn't even have the wherewithal to flip over the damn box and look at the rating or at least see what she could glean from the screenshots. Then again I've seen parents getting games for children which considerably more graphic imagery on the packaging. And I've seen parents taking small children to see fairly intense movies.

Too many parents can't be bothered to see what their kids are up to. The excuse I often hear is that they can't observe their kids 24 hours a day, so why even bother? They absolve themselves of responsibility and then expect the government to take over for them. And this is where the problem arises. They want to government to oversee everything so that they don't have to worry about anything.

Parents aren't supposed to by cool; they aren't supposed to be buddies. They need to be responsible for what their kids do and what they're exposed to.

A Real Mom (1)

PMuse (320639) | more than 6 years ago | (#21911916)

You really want to know how few women there are on Slashdot? Here's how.

Step 1: Go anywhere* that there are two or more moms.
Step 2: State that some mom is "A Real Mom".
Step 3: (duck)

Anywhere but here, that headline would have sparked a 500+ post flamewar.

*Note: Do not attempt this in meatspace.

In defense of everyone (2, Informative)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 6 years ago | (#21912306)

The more I read this stuff, the more I realise that it's all terribly ironic that all of the opposing factions are fighting for the same thing.

The ESRB, flawed as it is, is trying to provide information for consumers to make decisions. Two interesting quotes from their website:

"ESRB ratings are an excellent source for guidance and information about game content, but we also encourage parents to go beyond the ratings and do their own research about the games they or their children are considering for purchase or rental."

"While the ESRB does not have the authority to enforce its ratings at the retail level, it does work closely with retailers and game centers to display information that explains to customers how the rating system works."

The goofballs at NIMF may be going about things the wrong way, but they honestly do seem to believe that they're protecting children. By making decisions for parents, they are implicitly informing them. (Compare this to the movie industry: If a parent sees that a movie is rated NC-17, they don't have to make any decisions about whether it's appropriate for their 10-year-old, because the kid won't be able to get into it anyways.)

The good folks at Gamerdad are trying to avoid the protectionist attitudes of NIMF and the studied neutrality of the ESRB, and examine the content of games in context with regards to kids. They also are more than happy to enjoy adult games as adults, while keeping them away from their own kids (and letting you make your own decisions with your own kids). This is really how a maturity rating should work.

Finally, I'm sick of reading that most parents suck for not being the sole voice of responsiblity their kids' lives. YES, parents need to make these decisions. YES some parents neglect that field, and some of them (certainly not all!) do so because they don't care. However, most parents want what's right for their kids as well. ESRB ratings should be used as an indicator for the parents on what to look for. If some parents rely too havily on the ratings (or the comments from NIMF or gamerdad, or their kids' word, or...) part of it may be because they're not aware of the potential for video games. Consider someone in their early 40s, with a ten-year-old kid. It's entirely possible that the last video games they played were before the Commodore 64 hit the shelves. In order to make informed decisions about video games, they need to know that video games have evolved to the point where informed decisions need to be made, and they're worried about their kids making friends, not taking candy from strangers, avoiding street drugs, school, etc., etc., etc..

Bottom line in defense of flawed parents: raising a kid is different now than it was when we were raised, to the point that you can't always see where the new risks are coming from. More tools and more information is an asset, not a 'crutch for shitty parents who don't care.'

(Random aside: This also applies to 'netnanny' style blocking software. My son is being raised to use the internet responsibly, and until he's older, not without one of us being present. That doesn't change the fact that I ALSO am going to install blocking software, maintain and review firewall logs, and bring up any issues that occur. It's called defense-in-depth, and it works.)

call of duty 4 (2, Insightful)

TheSpengo (1148351) | more than 6 years ago | (#21912704)

I don't know about you guys, but when I search for "call of duty 4" the first hit is http://www.callofduty.com/ [callofduty.com] which has call of duty 4 modern warfare as the main page. It even has an age restriction drop down menu to make sure you are old enough to view a site advertising a rated M game.

Enough with the censorship nonsense! (4, Interesting)

shaitand (626655) | more than 6 years ago | (#21912824)

For god sake stop retarding the development of your child. The human mind learns from input, be it media content, life, or activities. There is no such thing as bad input, ALL input is useful and the brain derives useful information from it, learns to cope with it, learns what to avoid from it, and so forth. You can't dictate how a child will interpret and store that input, nor are you bright enough to define it by regulating the input, they will get that input anyway eventually and you will only serve to have slowed their mental development.

Perhaps you think ignorant children playing with imaginary friends are cute. I prefer rational and logical children I can have a discussion with. Ignorance may be bliss but I don't know many adults who would choose to be ignorant or mentally retarded. Maybe you are in the other crowd who wants them to be childlike, read ignorant, for as long as possible so that they are easier to control. Unlike those other pesky teenagers who use critical thinking skills and ask authority figures, such as parents, hard questions, like "Why?"

How about you try something new. Stop censoring your children altogether, to hell with the other parents, and start advising your children on how THEY CHOOSE to interpret the input. There is nothing wrong with a child learning about the birds and the bees while a toddler. Exposure to foul language can an excellent introduction to the sensitivities of others and consequences. A video game with cars being chased by police (as mentioned in the article) is a great opener to a continuation of the discussion on consequences, being less of an establishment type I would have fun with that discussion. A three year old won't fully understand, but it all goes into that mind somewhere and who said these talks only occur once?

Worried about desensitization? Don't be. Sensitization is a bad thing, it's what happens when you are underexposed to something and you are unable to cope with the something. It may be a sad world we live in and there may be some things we don't want to have to cope with, but that is a seperate issue. Whether pleasant or unpleasant, it is never advantageous to not be able to cope with something. That leaves you less able to take rational action in the face of that something. Interestingly, the more you let yourself encounter things you are underexposed to, the better your brain becomes able to cope with not being able to cope and the more capable you are acting rationally.

I'm not saying go find the nastiest goat porn you can and start driving into your child's mind 24/7. I am merely saying don't censor what comes your way anyway.

Re:Enough with the censorship nonsense! (2, Insightful)

dagarath (33684) | more than 6 years ago | (#21916042)

A child's brain is different at different ages. They are not little versions of adults with just less experience. A young child will have problems interpreting your idea of 'ALL' input. As children age, their brain matures and develops more critical thinking and abstract skills. So, while I can agree with some of your ideas the application of them is problematic depending on the age of the child.

Re:Enough with the censorship nonsense! (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919044)

'As children age, their brain matures and develops more critical thinking and abstract skills.'

The fact that a young child doesn't even grasp the material their parents think is mental poison is part of my point. Sex, drugs, and violence are no easier or more difficult for a child to grasp than cooking, cleaning, and basic procedures. Those critical thinking and abstract skills you mention do not magically develop, the brain is a learning machine and it starts as a fairly empty slate, it self programs to learn and understand more efficiently. The more input you feed a brain the more efficiently it will be able to process input, in the beginning the functions being improved may be more primitive. Censoring your child will cause the brain to develop more slowly to be able to understand and cope with abstract concepts later than an uncensored child.

The point is not merely that you should explain "adult" topics to your child when they are old enough to understand. The point is that introducing your child to as many real adult experiences and facts of the adult world and repeatedly and continually exposing them to those experiences will cause their brains to configure themselves to handle real adult life in the best and most efficient manner possible.

When they are old enough to actually understand the abstract concept it is often too late to impact fundamental brain function. Their brain will be trained to efficiently handle a fantasy environment their parents have created for them. Rather than the actual world we live in. Parents are able to create and maintain this environment like never before and the teens and young adults discovering the real world for the first time are actually so unable to cope they are killing themselves!

Re:Enough with the censorship nonsense! (1)

bcharr2 (1046322) | more than 6 years ago | (#21919600)

Pretty much every expert on planet earth who has made it their life work to study the development of children would disagree with nearly everything you said. So why should anyone lend credence to your assertions? Because you really really REALLY believe you're right? Because if you repeat it often enough it eventually becomes true? Because you know that on the internet there is always someone willing to believe anything ?

Typical (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 6 years ago | (#21913648)

People complaining about how bad certain things are usually know nothing about them. Like anti-marijuana speakers talkign about having a bad pot "trip."

Back in the 80s I worked at a paper and The last Temptation of Christ came out to great controversy. A local church ran an ad telling people how horrible the movie was and not to go to it. Only thing is, they called it "The Temptation of Jesus."

Stupid fuckers hadn't even seen the movie. We ran the ad uncorrected.

Insert clever subject line here (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917856)

Its good to see that not everyone wants to destroy gaming as being evil and corrupting the poor little kids. This was the first time that I have seen gamerdad.com and i plan on using it more in the future. Its a nice reference site from the little that I have seen so far. Also reading the original report, i noticed that they based their findings for the adults on "2,392 adults (aged 18 and over) of whom 690 have a child in their household." Even considering that all of those 2392 adults were partners and that the corresponding partner was also polled, effectively halving the total households to 1196, then that would mean that some 500 households polled didn't even have a kid present. Suddenly the numbers showing adults saying "Ive never seen this" or "I dont know what this means" dont mean as much because they DONT NEED TO. Either they included data from 1500 people without kids (or without custody) or they drew their conclusions from a sampling size of 700. Neither seems to me to be very reliable. Another point that Colleen could have brought up.

parent buddies (1)

rpillala (583965) | more than 6 years ago | (#21917936)

You know one way those buddy parents could get in on the game monitoring is to read reviews, or better yet go to metacritic. Sure, a lot of games "journalism" is garbage, but you can use it to compare relative merits of games. I teach high school and I have more credibility talking about whether a game is good or not versus how much "mature" content it has. I am a gamer myself (since like 1980) so I don't get my info from reviews. Certainly any parent who didn't want their kid playing Kane and Lynch could point to the number of reviews that labeled it a turkey. Or insist that your kids show you good reviews before you consider a purchase. There's something to be said for insisting on quality instead of just looking at ratings. I mean, consider the ratings too, but treat it like a movie or TV show. You don't want your kids watching The Pink Panther (2006) when they could be watching The Pink Panther(1963).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...