Gaming age

[Kif]

I am considering donating an old Nintendo console and its games to a friend who has a child. However, I started to think that the child may be too young at 5 and certainly too young for a lot of the games I have.

I came to the conclusion that as I have been playing games for maybe 20 years and now being a respectable adult I feel 12/13 is a good age for a child to take their first steps into gaming.

When I first started playing around age 7 games were barely recognisable by today?s standards, this meant that the content needed to be restricted much less. There was also a lack of more adult material in the first place; people were all into running jumping platformers rather than shooting people in the face. It strikes me that because of this, despite being perhaps in early teens when games like Grand Theft Auto 1, Fallout 1, Doom etc started popping up and maturing computer games I was perhaps still too young and my parents ignorant to their content and too easy to give in to my pestering.

I wouldn't say it's necessarily changed me as a person, but I am a well balanced individual. I feel that in a similar situation if I were a parent with my knowledge of games and having played them I would refuse a child of the same age I was access to those games.

In order to keep to the ever present list thread format this forum is heading towards, what age do you feel children should start to play games?

For discussion, with the benefit of your knowledge of games would you feel comfortable with your child playing games with a certificate higher than their age and why, similarly would you let them play the games which you had played when you were younger? How did your parents handle your gaming life?

 

[Kalabrikan]

It depends on the nature of the game and the nature of the child. My parents wouldn't buy me M-rated games (or anything with gore, for that matter) until I was 14. However, I started gaming when I was 4, and one of my first games was the FPS Descent. I was no stranger to violence, but I was a lot less aggressive than many of the other boys in elementary.

 

[Proteus214]

I started gaming at 3, but the only games I could really handle were things like Duck Hunt and some simple racing games (only because I liked crashing the cars). By the time I was 7 I was a master at Mortal Kombat. You want to start them out with something simple and gradually work your way up from there.

I really don't have much of a problem when it comes to the content of the games (violence, profanity, etc.), but more the amount of time that is spent on playing them. If I had a gamer child, the main thing that I would want them to learn from their gaming experiences is moderation, something my parents never taught me.

 

[Kif]

It depends on the nature of the game and the nature of the child. My parents wouldn't buy me M-rated games (or anything with gore, for that matter) until I was 14. However, I started gaming when I was 4, and one of my first games was the FPS Descent. I was no stranger to violence, but I was a lot less aggressive than many of the other boys in elementary.

Strange you should say that, similarly I was no stranger to violence through videogames and similarly I've never been an especially violent person compared to others. Maybe Jack Thompson had it the wrong way round.

 

[Krantos]

It depends on the nature of the game and the nature of the child. My parents wouldn't buy me M-rated games (or anything with gore, for that matter) until I was 14. However, I started gaming when I was 4, and one of my first games was the FPS Descent. I was no stranger to violence, but I was a lot less aggressive than many of the other boys in elementary.

Strange you should say that, similarly I was no stranger to violence through videogames and similarly I've never been an especially violent person compared to others. Maybe Jack Thompson had it the wrong way round.

Indeed, I would be curious to see some credible research done here. I'm with all of you, I started playing violent games before I was ten (well as violent as you could get on the NES) and I've never been in a fight in my life, I don't have any interest in guns, etc.

I wonder if perhaps expressing violence through video games can actually serve as a conduit for aggressive tendencies that otherwise might directed at other people. After all, who do you think is more likely to get into a fight: a gamer or a jock?

 

[Funkiest Monkey]

I'm sorry, what?

I'm 16 and I've been gaming since age 3. Super Mario Land, Tetris, Pokemon... All that jazz.

EDIT: Some Halo or Team Fortress wouldn't hurt, would it? Sure, keep the kiddies away from Adult rated games, and most Mature rated ones, but most games should be fine. Depends on how uptight and ignorant the parents are, really.

Are they the Daily Mail types who try to start a hate campaign when someone under 12 sees someone get tickled a bit too hard in-game? People who don't get videogames, or just don't have the time to play them with their child?

 

[Orwellian37]

I started at 5 with Super Mario 64. Just give this kid something age appropriate and they'll be fine.

 

[DangNabbit]

I think the best way to introduce a child to gaming is when they're young and with a really terrible game with horrid controls. That way, they learn how to beat an impossible game that prepares them for anything future games can throw at them!

 

[Funkiest Monkey]

I think the best way to introduce a child to gaming is when they're young and with a really terrible game with horrid controls. That way, they learn how to beat an impossible game that prepares them for anything future games can throw at them!

So that's why kid's movie tie-ins sell like fucking hot cakes. It all makes sense now.

 

[The Shade]

I started gaming probably around age 4. We had an old Mac computer (old even in those days) that had a couple of games that I remember but do not seem to exist anymore. (Mac Rogue and DragonMaze, for those keeping score.) Also, the X-Men Arcade game at the local arcade.

Though these incorporated fighting mechanics, they were far from gory or overly violent. I never had a problem with obsessing over games. The first game that I really took to was a little-known game called SimCity 2000. (ha) Possibly one of the least-violent games imaginable (unless a fight broke out at the city planner's meeting, I guess) and it basically set the tone for the rest of my gaming years.

My parents were not necessarily watchful over every game I played, but they did take an interest. (My dad built the most successful SimCity I have ever seen.) They knew that buying me games like Age of Empires wasn't going to warp my fragile little mind. In fact, that game probably taught me a lot about history. Go figure. All in all, I was one of the least-violent kids on the playground.

In short - yes, I would let my child play games with a higher age rating, within reasonable parameters. I wouldn't give a 10-year old Silent Hill 3 or Manhunt 2, but I would certainly let him play Half-Life or Halo.

 

[tlozoot]

I'm going to start my kids off on SNES stuff, and then they work their way up untill they can compete in tournaments and pay for my retirement.

 

[jaeger138]

To be honest I think kids are a lot smarter than they're given credit for. I don't have kids myself but I do have a young niece and nephew. While they're a little young to grasp a full title on something other than the Wii, I feel that when they are older they will be able to make their own decisions. That's not to say that I think certain content is appropriate for their age when it clearly isn't (maybe sex scenes and intense gore are a little much) I don't believe that they would play anything they didn't want to and also believe restricting them too much will just cause them to go out and find other ways of playing the games they want to play.

I have been playing games since I was about 3 or 4 and what I tended to find in retrospect is that I was playing games suitable for my age, not because my parents didn't allow me to play higher certificate titles but because I WANTED to play the games that were advertised for me. I was watching kids TV channels and being told about Pokemon on the GameBoy when it first came out, I was playing adventure games on the PC with my dad and brother because we all loved to sit down and solve the puzzles together, I was grinding in Final Fantasy IX because it looked so fantastical and had a great story. I did end up playing GTA2 (admittedly, a relatively mild game in terms of today's offerings) but I don't think it affected me negatively. My mother wasn't too happy about me playing that one but my dad was fine with it. Why? He'd played games with me, both my parents had brought me up to be nice to people, to be respectful and to differentiate between on-screen violence and crime and real-life. I was able to seperate that part of me that enjoyed running around with a flamthrower torching people from the real me.

My dad got this, he understood I was able to do this and it was because of him that I was able to play these titles that many parents may stop their kids from playing. I think it's wrong to restrict a kid from doing what he wants to do (not to say let your kids go wild, just be responsible) and instead of telling them what they CAN'T play, watch or listen to we should try to understand WHY they want to and explain to them that the images they see are not real and represent a fantasy that can only exist in this virtual world.

I think in this way, a kid can make their own decisions and choices and generally be a better person for it. I think it sets them up for the challenges of life, teaches them independent thought and promotes a healthy relationship with the technology of the age.

 

[Blueruler182]

My siblings were playing Halo when they were five. They weren't supposed to, but they did, and they're turning out better than I did, and they're only ten. I played Halo when it first came out, which would have made me... eleven, and I played other games like Super Smash Bros and Crash Bandicoot before that (if not as fervently), and I turned out fine. It's a nintendo console, there's no way you didn't have a cartoony game he could play. Just avoid giving him the ones with entrails. And Bad Fur Day.

 

[FallenJellyDoughnut]

I notice a lot of people on The Escapist have a really controlling way when it comes to videogames and children. I was playing Doom, Metroid, Super Mario Bros, and Donkey Kong when I was five, then when I was 7 I started playing GTA, (although I never found tank sprees very fun at all) and I turned out fine and I've never beaten up a kid or drowned a kitten or pushed an old lady down the stairs. (except for that one time, oh and that other time... and that time when I was bored... AAAAND that time she was walking too slow)

Relax people. Games are not serious business, let your kids play on them for 4 hours or more because really the only other thing they're going to be doing is watching TV so its not like it matters and let them play whatever they want, assuming you think they're mature enough to handle it.

 

[ReverendJ]

My son is now 6, and I'd love to be able to get him into video games but I find that most of the games I own are too complex. Current gen controllers are too large, with too many buttons, for his developing mind to grasp. We all grew up navigating 2D environments, via the simple expedient of directional pads. The difficulty jump up to 3D via analog stick is a bit much. I'd kill for an old-school NES for him, but finding one at an affordable price that actually functions properly has been problematic so far. Additionally, the content in old-skool NES games was automatically age appropriate, or what qualifies for age appropriate nowadays.

As for content... I'm actually kind of ashamed to mention this, but he has walked in on me playing L4D, and was instantly enthralled. While I would not normally condone exposing a small child to that, my son is very easily frightened, and L4D seems to have convinced him that monsters can be defeated, no matter how scary they are. My naturally timid son now has one type of movie monster that doesn't faze him in the slightest- the zombie. (We've gone over the Zombie Rules of Defense because, well, I'm that guy. Sorry.) I haven't exposed him to L4D2, and don't plan on it- the gore is a bit much. (Hear that, various authoritarian types? A PARENT exercising CONTROL without the need for CENSORSHIP.) In general, I consider gaming like any other media, which means that supervision is required. We had a slip up, but ultimately it seems to have worked out. He's still sweet as all hell, and insists that when we play the various toys make friends instead of fighting, so the limited exposure hasn't damaged him.

Parental guidance and supervision is more important than ever nowadays. I appreciate the libertarian ideal of letting kids explore the world on their own terms, but that really applies more to older kids than grade-schoolers. At this point in development, exposure to certain materials (such as, oh, I dunno, Manhunt) can be damaging. There aren't any hard-and-fast rules, as kids mature at different rates, so government intervention is of limited usefulness. Gaming can be great for kids; a number of cognitive studies have shown that navigating a 3D environment while avoiding danger and acquiring goodies are useful exercises. It's just a matter of making sure content is age appropriate.

On that note.... my son HAS seen a couple of the 'Meet the' videos, and greatly enjoys watching me play TF2. (He likes the Heavy.) While blood and dismemberment occur, there aren't any entrails, and it's all pretty tame compared to, say, Animal Planet.

tl;dr. Games and kids mix, as long as Mom & Dad know what's going on.

 

[migo]

Nothing wrong with starting a kid at 5, just be selective about the games. The easier ones that aren't frustrating to try to beat, and suck you in with operant condition are the ones to choose. So Kirby's Adventure would be perfect, whereas a game like Ninja Gaiden would be way too hard and could develop some addictive tendencies.

 

[manythings]

My first born will arrive very soon (Sept)...

I think it's more about managing what the child plays, rather than banning it completely.

Besides, I've got to train my kid up so that we can play coop or he can compete against me. I tend to not play shooters, but do like RPGs and Fighters. Maybe we'll be playing SF7 against each other.

That might make an interesting blog (typically a contradiction in terms) about introducing gaming to your children.

On the violence note I'm Catholic and Irish. There's plenty of pretty terrible shit in my religion and my nation's history so we were all introduced to some harsh ideas when we were young. So long as your friend teaches his kid to understand the difference between the screen and the world there won't be an issue.

Just like my stance on guns. They already exist and they are never going away so the surest protection against harm is understanding.

As for content... I'm actually kind of ashamed to mention this, but he has walked in on me playing L4D, and was instantly enthralled. While I would not normally condone exposing a small child to that, my son is very easily frightened, and L4D seems to have convinced him that monsters can be defeated, no matter how scary they are. My naturally timid son now has one type of movie monster that doesn't faze him in the slightest- the zombie. (We've gone over the Zombie Rules of Defense because, well, I'm that guy. Sorry.) I haven't exposed him to L4D2, and don't plan on it- the gore is a bit much. (Hear that, various authoritarian types? A PARENT exercising CONTROL without the need for CENSORSHIP.) In general, I consider gaming like any other media, which means that supervision is required. We had a slip up, but ultimately it seems to have worked out. He's still sweet as all hell, and insists that when we play the various toys make friends instead of fighting, so the limited exposure hasn't damaged him.

I am all in favour of this kind of approach. You put in the effort to control the content and make him understand the context, that's all it takes. I think it is important for children to understand monsters can die.

 

[Soviet Steve]

NES for him

http://www.virtualnes.com/

http://www.virtualgbx.com/

NES and Gameboy, right from the browser. There's also the possibility of using emulators but that's slightly more complex.

Good job on keeping a watch on your kid's doings.


Incidently I started out when I was 2½ with videogames, playing commander Keen. I never did well, wasn't too good at using the gun and I'd usually die. Yes, a 2½ year old murdering virtual creatures. It has completely destroyed me, I'm now a college student working towards becoming an accountant.

 

[ReverendJ]

NES for him

NES and Gameboy, right from the browser. There's also the possibility of using emulators but that's slightly more complex.

Good job on keeping a watch on your kid's doings.

Yeah... that's the other thing. He's not allowed to touch my expensive-ass gaming laptop (I have SEVERAL friends who erased their fathers' hard drives as small children, NOT HAVING IT), and he's sure as hell not allowed anywhere near the internet for quite some time. Not as long as /b/ exists.

 

[omega 616]

I am 21, I played resident evil series, manhunt, clock tower (something), metal gear solid, gta series (etc) at release, work out how old I was if you like but suffice to say I wasn't old enough for any of them (I think I might be okay with MGS though).

I would let any child of mine play any game there capable of, if they can do the first level of manhunt at 6, then they can play manhunt at 6.