Psychologist Suggests Ditching Age Rating and Going With Content Instead
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
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.
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.
Agreed. Sexuality in general is already spoken to. Homosexuality should not be singled out and covered separately. You don't go around warning racists that 'this title has blacks in it'.Woodsey said:
I didn't read many posts, but im going to put in my opinion anyway 
I think age ratings are a stupid idea all across the board, physically reaching a certain age doesn't magically make a person able to handle a certain type of content, and being far under that age doesn't mean you'll freak out and go mutilate some animals either. I was born in 1983, played Doom and Quake when they first came out, I watched Lethal Weapon, Terminator, Robocop, etc all well before my teens (although i always covered my eyes during the scene where Murphy (Robocop) is shot to crap near the start, lol), and i listened to and watched plenty of adult comedy, whether they were comedians or shows.
My parents let me do those things because they knew it wasn't going to be a problem for me, and lo and behold, ive commited no crimes, dont drink or do drugs, and only been in 2 fights, both started by other people, in other words, its parents who know thier children best, and if they're doing thier jobs (as mine did) they will decide what thier child can or cant do based on the content description mentioned in the first post. If they're not doing thier jobs, then age ratings and content warnings dont mean a thing anyway, and the kids will watch or play anything regardless.
I think age ratings are a stupid idea all across the board, physically reaching a certain age doesn't magically make a person able to handle a certain type of content, and being far under that age doesn't mean you'll freak out and go mutilate some animals either. I was born in 1983, played Doom and Quake when they first came out, I watched Lethal Weapon, Terminator, Robocop, etc all well before my teens (although i always covered my eyes during the scene where Murphy (Robocop) is shot to crap near the start, lol), and i listened to and watched plenty of adult comedy, whether they were comedians or shows.
My parents let me do those things because they knew it wasn't going to be a problem for me, and lo and behold, ive commited no crimes, dont drink or do drugs, and only been in 2 fights, both started by other people, in other words, its parents who know thier children best, and if they're doing thier jobs (as mine did) they will decide what thier child can or cant do based on the content description mentioned in the first post. If they're not doing thier jobs, then age ratings and content warnings dont mean a thing anyway, and the kids will watch or play anything regardless.
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,161
- 126
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
This, although some of the current ratings are a bit out of whack, like Super Smash Bro's Brawl being a 12+ in Europe (don't know about other places), solely for it's cartoon-style fighting with no blood, gore, pain etc, or Pokemon Battle Revolution being a 7+ because it has pokemon battling each other. Children love these games and examples such as these lower respect for the whole system as once a parent finds out that a 12+ game actually has no objectible content for their 7 year old child then they begin to doubt it, or go by what other parents do.Apl_J said:
This is foolish, games do include anything that could be potentially offensive (for the most part), I don't understand why a psychologist would study this. While the age rating system is not perfect he is stating an opinion. I don't see how him being a psychologist should add weight to his arguement. Thats the issue with it is that much of psychology is opinion. Of course there is the psychology which is pure fact, but this kind of research seems like a waste of time IMO.
He is not stating anything really beneficial. After reading many of the news articles about psychological studies about games on the escapist, most of these guys are just spewing their opinions trying to be heard. I really don't like their methadology.
He is not stating anything really beneficial. After reading many of the news articles about psychological studies about games on the escapist, most of these guys are just spewing their opinions trying to be heard. I really don't like their methadology.
I was going to say that I thought this was a neat idea. But then I realized that I honestly think it isn't.
A parent who doesn't care to take the time to pay attention isn't going to care if the content listing is more detailed and most parents who do care are more knowledgeable than what we give them credit for. For instance, my mom never cared about ratings. So what good would adding more content indicators do for her? Or with my niece and nephew, I choose games that I know they can handle on a basic level (they both are mature enough to handle gore that is cartoonish but realistic a la Borderlands, but my niece isn't mature enough for anything sexual, even kissing).
To be honest, because the game industry and stores regulate so much (keeping actual sexual themes and even more realistic violence like child abuse or spousal abuse to an absolute minimum, that is to say none at all), I don't see a huge issue with a parent buying a kid a game they want. I don't see Call of Duty completely destroying a child's mind, especially if they already have a parent who doesn't care enough to regulate what they see and experience. But I guess that's besides the point. xD
A parent who doesn't care to take the time to pay attention isn't going to care if the content listing is more detailed and most parents who do care are more knowledgeable than what we give them credit for. For instance, my mom never cared about ratings. So what good would adding more content indicators do for her? Or with my niece and nephew, I choose games that I know they can handle on a basic level (they both are mature enough to handle gore that is cartoonish but realistic a la Borderlands, but my niece isn't mature enough for anything sexual, even kissing).
To be honest, because the game industry and stores regulate so much (keeping actual sexual themes and even more realistic violence like child abuse or spousal abuse to an absolute minimum, that is to say none at all), I don't see a huge issue with a parent buying a kid a game they want. I don't see Call of Duty completely destroying a child's mind, especially if they already have a parent who doesn't care enough to regulate what they see and experience. But I guess that's besides the point. xD
At least there's discussion about the issue, in a pretty respected journal no less.
Personally, I like the content descriptor approach, different parents have different idea as to what's appropriate for their children, it requires at least some level of engagement as opposed to arbitrary age ratings.
Of course, they could always take the approach my cousin's husband does: play the damn game first and decide whether his kid should play it.
Personally, I like the content descriptor approach, different parents have different idea as to what's appropriate for their children, it requires at least some level of engagement as opposed to arbitrary age ratings.
Of course, they could always take the approach my cousin's husband does: play the damn game first and decide whether his kid should play it.
XD My mum is still amazed to this day that I have to use my ID to buy games. "Wait, so it can have adult content? Like an R-rated movie!?"
*FACEPALM*
*FACEPALM*
If only parents had the time/interest to do this...deathninja said:
Anyway, more specificity in that little box would be nice. As for the homosexuality thing... well, that's another can of worms, but personally I wouldn't mind the homosexual disclaimers to be there.
And wtf, I just got Chinese characters in my reCaptcha
You must have missed the memo. You are allowed to over generalize about everything here EXCEPT gamers. One bad cop messes up, all cops suck. One bad parent? They are all useless anyway. One gamer kills someone. OH NO! WE ARE NOT ALL LIKE THAT HOW DARE THEY BLAME THAT ON GAMING!!!James Joseph Emerald said:
Also, you will all scream in another thread about how mature you are for your age but when someone mentions removing the ages and going with an actual informative system for content you throw a fit about it too. They can keep the age limits as far as I am concerned I prefer to play the games and make my own decisions. Sorry so many parents have disappointed you. Remember this if you ever become one.
Parents can't fucking follow a system that should pretty much tell you when your kid is too young to play the game, why would making them use their brains make anything better.
The study is probability an American one, where about half the population still believes that homosexuality is amoral. Nevertheless, many parents believe that exposing their kids to the concept of homosexuality at too young an age it will confuse and frighten them. Yes, I am aware that according to child psychiatrists that study these things you can introduce the concept without scaring the kid at around age seven.samsonguy920 said:
I never liked the idea of a rating system. Maturity is sujective. So is the amount of gore and blood someone can handle. I think if the rating system was ditched we could really blossom as an artistic medium. People would no longer be afraid of what is acceptable. And people would be forced to actually be forced to look up their entertainment.
How would a rating system like this stop a kid from getting what would have been an M-rated game or get into an R-rated movie, though? Informing parents is fine, but it also has to keep inappropriate material away from kids when the parents aren't with them.
How true. I'm a parent myself and while I love that my kids like to play games as much as I do, I also make sure that what they play is appropriate. My son, who turns 8 in about 3 weeks, loves Batman, but I won't let him play Arkham Asylum mainly because of the language. If there were a game based on the cartoon and thus more kid friendly (there probably is, I just haven't looked) I wouldn't have a problem getting him that. In fact he has Lego Batman and loves it.Apl_J said:
I've seen parents come in with kids that look like they're 8-10 and buy them GTA games, the clerk reads the back of the box and they just say yes, probably not even listening to what they say. While I'm sure some do listen and are ok with their kids being exposed to that content, I've also heard stories where the parents come back to complain about the game after they were read the rating and reasons. Heaven forbid they even bother to read or research it themselves.
I know what games I like and what I will and won't allow my kids to play. Just like I won't let my kids watch some movies due to content. I just wish more parents (I'd say all, but I'm trying to be realistic here) would take more control over it. If they really do understand what's in it and still think it's ok, then who am I to question their parenting? But most of them don't seem to bother with learning what content the game has and just nod at the clerk so they can go home and have some peace and quiet while little Johnny plays his new game (and probably spits profanity across the net while doing it).
I was with them right up until the "shield their children from homosexuality" and "disrespect towards a deity" parts
This.starwarsgeek said:
It's one thing to educate people and let them choose, I like that idea. However we need defined lines to stop kids getting games they shouldn't get without parental supervision.
I played Mortal Kombat on N64, that's probably my first 18. My parents made sure to watch it first to ensure it was safe.
Anyway, point is a salesperson can't make the call on every individual game/CD/film/TV series for every kid. Age ratings work because they give clear direction. They might not always be fair but it's easier than nothing. Just putting the content on the box won't help much when we deal with just children, it only works if adults are there.
unfortunately everything is run by PR companies and publishers. just to pick one example out of the OP, and this could apply to anything that was on their survey list, lets say that a game has some kind of homosexual reference or scene. they will have to print on the back of the box that the game contains homosexual references. whether or not this decreases sales, publishers will begin telling dev companies to nix the homosexual content. there are already enough interesting stories that never get told, on account of the publisher's bottom line. the last thing the industry needs is more of the same.
unfortunately whats best for the parents and children is not whats best for the industry. i cant really come down on the publishers either, because they are the ones risking the money to bring me my favorite hobby. the vast vast majority of games in fact do not profit. the fact of the matter is that the VG industry is an incredibly antagonistic one. The developers, publishers, PR companies and consumers all depend on each other, but are constantly at odds with one another.
unfortunately whats best for the parents and children is not whats best for the industry. i cant really come down on the publishers either, because they are the ones risking the money to bring me my favorite hobby. the vast vast majority of games in fact do not profit. the fact of the matter is that the VG industry is an incredibly antagonistic one. The developers, publishers, PR companies and consumers all depend on each other, but are constantly at odds with one another.