Psychologist Suggests Ditching Age Rating and Going With Content Instead
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Maybe its wrong of me but I really expect a little more objectivity from people that are professionals in theory field. I find it very amateur for to this person to present that research in a way that it appears the only variable is if the parent checked ratings before hand.Logan Westbrook said:
I have another reason for it that seems just as likely to me: The types of parents that check ratings are by large more involved in the lives of their children. This leads to fewer behavioral problems.
Then again I am not the professional here. I just find that not being clear at best makes him look desperate to validate an opinion with any data he can find to back it.
It's humorous to me that so many complain, that 10 year old Johnny's parents bought him an M rated game, and bash the parents but then don't seem to mind that said M rated game gets a sequel because so many "stupid parents" boosted the sales.
You're right, it does look like a specious jump of logic. However, what I suspect he intended was something along the lines of "being a good parent is hard work, why not make it a bit easier in this one aspect (determining if a video game is appropriate for a child)."manaman said:
That small benefit could hypothetically help any parent, from the very best to the very worst.
I might compare it to putting nutritional information on food packaging. Sure, some (perhaps many) will ignore it, but it will be really helpful and convenient to others.
I agree. I think its more that the parents who don't check are just too un-involved in there children lifes that when certain behavioral problems do show up they don't see or pay attention so the kid keeps going down that road.manaman said:
The rating system could be improved, sure. I stand behind the rating system, I think it's a bit flawed, but I also think that it tends to be a bit useless. Even if it were more accurate or more descriptive or whatever, parents won't care. They buy the games regardless of the rating just to shut up their kid.
Of course, when they get offended by it, they get mad at the people who sold it to them in the first place and the people who made it.
I know when I was working at GameStop, I would always tell parents why it was rated the way it was, especially when it was an M game, and in all of the three years I was there, only two parents cared.
Besides, as even the article said, they say why the rating is the way it is, and honestly, I don't see why there is a problem with the "age rating." Since things are pretty much the same across the board, with the age rating, parents should know what to expect. And if they're unsure, every box has a preview of content for their rating if people bother to look.
Of course, when they get offended by it, they get mad at the people who sold it to them in the first place and the people who made it.
I know when I was working at GameStop, I would always tell parents why it was rated the way it was, especially when it was an M game, and in all of the three years I was there, only two parents cared.
Besides, as even the article said, they say why the rating is the way it is, and honestly, I don't see why there is a problem with the "age rating." Since things are pretty much the same across the board, with the age rating, parents should know what to expect. And if they're unsure, every box has a preview of content for their rating if people bother to look.
The guy's got a good point, well made and well researched.
But, it will only take one parent who can't be bothered to read to CAUSE MASSIVE OUTRAGE and get it cancelled.
I think parents should have to sign a waiver saying they've read the label before they buy anything.
But, it will only take one parent who can't be bothered to read to CAUSE MASSIVE OUTRAGE and get it cancelled.
I think parents should have to sign a waiver saying they've read the label before they buy anything.
I think the only way to grab parents attention to who the more offensive adult etc games are made for is to have all M rated games boot up with unskippable hardcore pornography.
I mean for adults is for adults, you wouldn't buy timmy a hustler, but you'll let him play games where he sees slit throats, exploded corpses, a mans mouth being punched to hell after its been stuffed with glass. So Why not just skip the morals they claim to bestow on their kids and cut the shit.
I don't go to the mcdonalds ball pit, chug beer and yell fuck for hours on end, the least parents can do is keep their spawn from calling me a what ever hot new racial slur they just learned all summer while the parents pop valium's and watch the real housewives, or whatever it is these " parents " do that isn't keeping them in check.
I mean for adults is for adults, you wouldn't buy timmy a hustler, but you'll let him play games where he sees slit throats, exploded corpses, a mans mouth being punched to hell after its been stuffed with glass. So Why not just skip the morals they claim to bestow on their kids and cut the shit.
I don't go to the mcdonalds ball pit, chug beer and yell fuck for hours on end, the least parents can do is keep their spawn from calling me a what ever hot new racial slur they just learned all summer while the parents pop valium's and watch the real housewives, or whatever it is these " parents " do that isn't keeping them in check.
It's hard to agree when the main reason ratings don't work is that parents don't stop to process them. A simplification that works is better than an elaborate system that doesn't.
Imagine "Dicktits". That is all.ThatGuyWithTheShotty said:
OT: Meh. Decent idea doomed to poor execution.
Unfortunately, I doubt this will come to pass. I'd love it to, but I don't see it happening.
I argued this point in an essay submitted for my English course last year, saying that ratings are rather unreliable. There's just too much room for variation under just the two or three age ratings that are in use right now. Something like this would make for a far more accurate idea of the suitability of a game/film/whatever than a single number. However, this would also require effort all round- On the part of the developers (when labelling their content), the designers (in fitting all this extra information onto the box and still having it appeal), and the people -probably parents- who would have to sort through this information to come to a decision, and quite frankly, the human race is too lazy for that.
I argued this point in an essay submitted for my English course last year, saying that ratings are rather unreliable. There's just too much room for variation under just the two or three age ratings that are in use right now. Something like this would make for a far more accurate idea of the suitability of a game/film/whatever than a single number. However, this would also require effort all round- On the part of the developers (when labelling their content), the designers (in fitting all this extra information onto the box and still having it appeal), and the people -probably parents- who would have to sort through this information to come to a decision, and quite frankly, the human race is too lazy for that.
Ratings aren't laws, they are suggestions. As soon as people start realizing that then they can stop expecting ratings to stop kids from getting M titles. Many parents take their kids into rated R movies or rent them at home, you don't hear Hollywood screaming about it. The rating on games are no different and trying to make them more complicated won't solve anything.
i'm offended that people would refuse to let their children play a game because of depictions of homosexuality
edit: or if a game was sacrilegious towards a certain deity. what was that about keeping an open mind?
edit: or if a game was sacrilegious towards a certain deity. what was that about keeping an open mind?
"You'll kill my dick? What does that even mean?! Oh yea, well I'LL KILL YOUR DICK, HOW ABOUT THAT?!"lacktheknack said:
I wasn't aware that the disclaimer on the back saying "contains blood, sexual references, and use of tobacco etc." wasn't good enough. IF so, then include more info about the content on the back. The letter rating and age specifics don't really do anything to begin with since most people have their parents by the games for then if they are under aged.
I think we're fine where we are.
I think we're fine where we are.
We could just make a bigger box for the cautionary information, and I agree that we should probably make a universal descriptor system for the, even if some of the descriptors weren't used for all media (can't depict murder in music, for example).
I think this information needs to be on the box, as that's the only way to ensure that this info gets out to potential buyers at every conceivable retail outlet. It should also be on the front, as too many places hold their video games hostage behind glass cases. Plus, if it were on the front, more people would read it.
I think this information needs to be on the box, as that's the only way to ensure that this info gets out to potential buyers at every conceivable retail outlet. It should also be on the front, as too many places hold their video games hostage behind glass cases. Plus, if it were on the front, more people would read it.