Psychologist Suggests Ditching Age Rating and Going With Content Instead

[Sabrestar]

People don't read ratings, and mostly they complain about games/movies/books/thoughts they haven't seen, read, investigated, or done anything other than heard of. Thus the discussion is largely moot except for political points anyway.

That said, I've been saying this about age-related ratings for years. I've personally known (and taught) 20-somethings that I wouldn't trust with a colouring book, and known 13-year-olds who could handle some pretty heavy stuff without being affected by it. Granted they're both pretty small minorities, but it falls back into the standard sociopolitical trap of blindly classifying everyone into a few large groups. (Yes, I'm aware that I just did that above. I was being overdramatic to make a point. I accept responsibility for that.)

Before ESRB ratings were standard in the USA, there was a competing method that graded a game on several sliding scales based on the depth of depiction of violence, sexuality, etc. I believe it was mostly used on PC games in the mid-90s. Don't recall the name, but I could dig out my old Realms of Arkania: Star Trail box and find a copy of one. I liked that it provided descriptions without just blanket age groups, and generally provided far more information for people to ignore.

if they get rid of age ratings how will the Australian government stop me from playing games that involve violence?

They'll simply outright ban any game that someone complains about.

 

[theskadudeguy]

I'll tell you what. There needs to be a global standard at least.
I used to work in GAME and French exchange students how were about 15 would always try and buy 50 cent the game. Trying to explain to them that the huge red circle with the number 18 written in it meant they couldn't buy it was often a chore. After a while I just learnt the French phrase; "tu peut pas ce achete".

 

[cardinalwiggles]

for games like grand theft auto the game box would need to be three times bigger to accomodate all the content it has. holy impractical but perhaps a shorthand perhaps a graphical representation

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Well having an ERSB rating on the box is pretty useless for some minors,because they will find a way to persuade their parents to buy it for them(this works in most cases).

The idea of the psychologist is a good one,but it won't change the fact that if the game has extreme content(gore,sex,violence etc)minors won't think of a way to get their hands on it.

 

[Thumper17]

Or these parents can do their homework and actually look up the game. Be it on youtube or through friends that know about it/have played it. You know, actual parenting.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

"He also noted that there were some topics that some parents felt very strongly about - such as depictions of homosexuality "

Yes, be sure to make your children as homophobic as possible, so they can be as biggotted as you are, "good parents"...

 

[Strazdas]

guess im not the only one saying that ratings are complete and utter failure of humanity.
for people who keep saying the idiocy of "omg my 10 year old kid will see gore and grow up to be psychopath" should probably remember their youth. people lived before ratings existed, kids watched movies like The Blob at ages of 6 and they grew up to be decent casual people. im sorry if you were so underdeveloped to be unable to differentiate between real world and movie/game but that doesn't mean everyone was.
anyway, according to this forum rules i probably went a bit too far, but id rather express my real opinion than hide behind censorship.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

Very cynical bunch of people around here.
I'm sure there's a LOT of parents who would find a proper rating system very helpful. Especially with the gamer generation getting older and starting to become parents themselves.

 

[Red-Link]

" He also noted that there were some topics that some parents felt very strongly about - such as depictions of homosexuality "

I wouldn't put that on the back of the box just to hammer the nail in on this subject for such morons.

Anyway, people should inform themselves if they want to know more. Enough is done already by retailers and ratings boards.

In today's world, where homosexuality is trying to be considered equal with heterosexuality, this guy would see depictions of homosexuality adding to a rating more than a girl and boy kissing.
This is one part that convinces me this guy is an idiot. Worse, quite possibly a bigot, as well. People with that kind of bias do not belong anywhere near a system that is supposed to help gamers decide what is appropriate to play for certain agegroups.
I would like to ask him if there should be a warning for interracial content.

All the quote says is that some parents felt strongly about it. It doesn't give a hint of his personal feelings.

Thank you for noting this. Some people have an issue with homosexuality, apparently, some of these people are parents and got into the study. Big surprise. Studies like this tend to go over a lot of different things and that would probably meet a VERY vitriolic response, hence the singling out of it for the sake of example. Maybe the guy is a raging homophobe, but for all the actual quote notes about him, he could just as easily be homosexual... or an asexually reproducing bacteria.

 

[Strazdas]

Very cynical bunch of people around here.
I'm sure there's a LOT of parents who would find a proper rating system very helpful. Especially with the gamer generation getting older and starting to become parents themselves.

Yes, there are many bad parenting examples, including, but not limited to, thinking rating system can determine what is suitable for their children.

 

[RatRace123]

Yeah, but the problem with this is that it suggests that parents actually look at the ratings info on the box... and I'm pretty sure they don't do that.

 

[Hungry Donner]

Before the ESRB ratings games did have something like this, where language, gore, and sexuality all received separate scores. I'd love to see us go back to something like that.

When my wife and I want to watch a movie with our six-year-old we go to IMDB and check the parental information. While the age ratings aren't useless (we wouldn't bother with an R rated movie, for example) we're going to learn far more from the IMDB descriptions than simply a G/PG/PG-13 rating.

ESRB does give some information on what went into a rating but I think it really is insufficient.

 

[Apl_J]

After reading some of these comments, I can't wait for some of you to become parents. Everything changes.

 

[Yopaz]

I like this idea, in theory it takes away the reason to complain for the parents who buy the M-rated games for their 10 year old, but then again, they ignored the M-rating too so why would this change anything?

 

[Epona]

The content is already listed on the back of the box next to the rating. I don't see a problem with the current system, it gives the most information for the most customers. If a parent only cares about the rating, it's there but if they want to read about the content, it's there too.

I think sometimes people create unnecessary changes to justify their paycheck.

 

[renegade7]

But videogames are for children! Who would put such disgusting things inside a childrens toy?!

because of evil game developers who want to get kids addicted to games and violence so they'll kill and rape

 

[jackanderson]

Whilst the ideas are valid and slightly clever; this is what the media would think of a rating system without ages:


WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

Very cynical bunch of people around here.
I'm sure there's a LOT of parents who would find a proper rating system very helpful. Especially with the gamer generation getting older and starting to become parents themselves.

Yes, there are many bad parenting examples, including, but not limited to, thinking rating system can determine what is suitable for their children.

And you're going to assume that good parents are in such a minority that any attempt to help them would yield trivial benefits?

 

[Sparrow]

Sounds about right to me. Only thing is, how would they fit all of it on the front cover with a game like GTA IV?

He also noted that there were some topics that some parents felt very strongly about - such as depictions of homosexuality...

Surely the moment homosexuality becomes something to point out the vocal homophobics of the population have won.

 

[TainInfernus]

Okay, this guy is just wrong.
I do agree that there could be more context in a rating system, however I don't agree with his motivation. Besides, ratings can be pretty screwy. I'll elaborate:

"'Parents say they really want ratings, but they don't really use them that much because they aren't accurate,' he said."

He states that parents don't use rating systems because they're inaccurate. Now that's demonstrably incorrect. Parents don't use the ratings because they don't give a shit. They have no intellectual investment in their child's entertainment. They should at least look it up on... anything! They think that it's a toy and they just get their kid a toy so they'll shut up.
And this directly addresses his next point:

"The reason it matters so much is because research indicates when parents do use ratings, it's good for kids. They get into fewer fights [jand] have better grades in school."
This is true, but incidentally. The underlying issue is not that video games cause strife at school, but that children whose parents who have an active role in their life don't have as many issues as those that don't.

Creating a new ratings system isn't going to solve this because parents who already have an active role in their child's life are the type of parents who will be discriminating about which things they will buy for their kids; they are more willing to do the research to make an educated guess about what's proper, regardless of the ratings.

The only reason we have a ratings system is not to give parents more power, but to make sure that children don't gain access to mature content. It's not an educational tool, at its heart, it's a tool to limit access; to control. We had this argument back in the PMRC days with Frank Zappa.

"So, the better the ratings are the more power we've given to parents. And 'digital convergence' - the ability to consume the same media on a variety of devices nowadays - means now is the time to develop a rating system that is universal."

The fact that shared media is becoming mainstream means that it requires more effort to remain ignorant of the nature of certain content. People have absolutely no excuse for buying their kids Grand Theft Auto and then being surprised at the role of beating hookers in the game economy.

We should have a system that educates people about what kinds of things exist in which pieces of content, but this is not the role of a ratings system. No matter how much these people want to change it to be so, ratings are always about limitation. The role should sit with reviewers and games journalists, hell even the website of the company or a Wikipedia article could establish more context than any ratings system ever could. Hell, we already have one: it's called being responsible and getting involved with what your kids are doing. Anything less than that is negligence. If you want someone/thing else to raise your kids, you'd better not be surprised at what they are exposed to. That's your only fucking job as parent: keep her off the pole. Now do it.