Psychologist Suggests Ditching Age Rating and Going With Content Instead
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
THANK YOU!Logan Westbrook said:
Seriously, I may not be gay, but I must admit that ignoring that fact that homosexuality exists will only make things far worse when the kid gets older and finds out about it themselves.
Besides, what reason do we have to protest it? What are we, the fucking WBC? I think not.
Crysis 2 I can't pass judgement on, since I haven't played it or looked into it enough to have an informed opinion on it. Bulletstorm, however, has the word "dick" being thrown around at pretty regular intervals, so it's easy for me to believe that someone suggested "sucking" or otherwise sexually interacting with said dick.ThatGuyWithTheShotty said:
OT: I dunno about this. It'd make it easier for me to know what was in the game, but it's easy to see how reading overly specific things like "brief, somewhat sexually arousing glimpses of sideboob" and "not too gory, brutal, or nasty in general, but fairly realistic, brief segments of necessary and properly justified violence" could get really, really boring, and I can't expect any difference in the number of parents who ***** that Call of Duty made their kid stick the hamster in the microwave or something.
Wow, anything to keep a parent from actually, you know, parenting.
No, it really doesn't. If my daughter tells me she wants a specific game, I research said game and determine if it is appropriate by the standards that I and my wife set, not by some arbitrary rating system that has no idea what my 15-year-old can handle. More information on the box isn't going to help anything other than to raise the price of the game to the consumer to offset the cost of hiring more ESRB raters and altered packaging. There's already enough free reviews done online that spending a little time online will glean more information than a blurb on a box.Apl_J said:
Sounds good. For now, I'm with this 100%. As a younger kid, my parents were extremely nervous about magic and sorcery in movies and games. However, no rating system ever accounted for that. It was a hassle for them, which in turn prevented me from a lot of culture I would have been able to experience sooner, which pisses me off.
Also, including depictions of homosexuality is not a minor issue as much as it is a non-issue. Some people don't like it, a lot of people don't want their kids around it, and so let them. It's not homophobia, it's making a lifestyle choice. Though of course, if this rating system ever becomes a thing, it WILL generate a ton of controversy. But if the scientists and publishers stick to their guns, it won't be long before people realize how harmless it is and mostly shut up about it.
Also, including depictions of homosexuality is not a minor issue as much as it is a non-issue. Some people don't like it, a lot of people don't want their kids around it, and so let them. It's not homophobia, it's making a lifestyle choice. Though of course, if this rating system ever becomes a thing, it WILL generate a ton of controversy. But if the scientists and publishers stick to their guns, it won't be long before people realize how harmless it is and mostly shut up about it.
I thought this was why there were the breakdowns under the rating (you know, "Cartoon Violence", "Drug Reference", etc.)
Eh... I don't know.
a) He says we should describe the potentially objectionable material. There is no way that a ratings board could anticipate everything someone could find objectionable. Additionally, mature themes which are inappropriate for children may be a pervasive part of the game, but there might not be anything on the "checklist of naughty things".
b) One graphically violent image may be acceptable to some. 500 of them might not be. Unless they list how many times each potentially objectionable event occurs, it's just as useless as before. Maybe more so, because it's not in context.
c) Some things which are objectionable to a large portion of the population (especially those members of the population which constitute the demographic most likely to be involved parents) are no longer "okay" to list as offensive. (please see: homosexuality) Instating a ratings system that listed them as potentially offensive is asking for a media shitstorm.
d) Creating more text for consumers to read isn't going to make lazy parents stop being lazy.
All in all, parents have to take an interest. Good parents don't drop $60 on a toy they aren't confident is safe. They examine it, making a determination for themselves. Ratings are helpful, but ultimately you have to do the same thing for media you purchase for your children.
a) He says we should describe the potentially objectionable material. There is no way that a ratings board could anticipate everything someone could find objectionable. Additionally, mature themes which are inappropriate for children may be a pervasive part of the game, but there might not be anything on the "checklist of naughty things".
b) One graphically violent image may be acceptable to some. 500 of them might not be. Unless they list how many times each potentially objectionable event occurs, it's just as useless as before. Maybe more so, because it's not in context.
c) Some things which are objectionable to a large portion of the population (especially those members of the population which constitute the demographic most likely to be involved parents) are no longer "okay" to list as offensive. (please see: homosexuality) Instating a ratings system that listed them as potentially offensive is asking for a media shitstorm.
d) Creating more text for consumers to read isn't going to make lazy parents stop being lazy.
All in all, parents have to take an interest. Good parents don't drop $60 on a toy they aren't confident is safe. They examine it, making a determination for themselves. Ratings are helpful, but ultimately you have to do the same thing for media you purchase for your children.
Imagine for a moment that we had truly effective traffic laws everywhere. The second you go a mile per hour over the speed limit you get a ticket, anywhere. Creep over the line, instant ticket. Now imagine that for every piece of media a child experiences, their parents can instantly block anything and everything that they find remotely offensive, such that the child never sees it until some vague time when the parents deem it okay.
The reason that children are able to grow up at all is that even the ones with really controlling parents can find ways to slip out of their parents' grasp and learn to be their own people. It's not like they should be free to do anything and everything. There's a reason parents don't want their kids to be cocaine addicts by age 8, after all. But preventing their children from ever seeing 'depictions of homosexuality' or 'partial nudity' or hearing 'offensive language' will just stifle their intellectual and psychological growth. Does it just end at, for example 18, when children can move out and control their own lives? How will they ever make friends if they are stuck mentally at the age of ten?
I say no. Let the ratings system be a little opaque. Stop protecting the children so much; they're not fine porcelain. And anyway, babies bounce.
The reason that children are able to grow up at all is that even the ones with really controlling parents can find ways to slip out of their parents' grasp and learn to be their own people. It's not like they should be free to do anything and everything. There's a reason parents don't want their kids to be cocaine addicts by age 8, after all. But preventing their children from ever seeing 'depictions of homosexuality' or 'partial nudity' or hearing 'offensive language' will just stifle their intellectual and psychological growth. Does it just end at, for example 18, when children can move out and control their own lives? How will they ever make friends if they are stuck mentally at the age of ten?
I say no. Let the ratings system be a little opaque. Stop protecting the children so much; they're not fine porcelain. And anyway, babies bounce.
I agree completely. I also see the problems that people face trying to put up a new, serviceable rating system, but look forward to seeing it completed. I really hate the way media is currently rated in this country. I would also add that some children are more mature than others. I've got a nephew who's nine years old, but is mature enough to handle most movies with the PG13 rating. His younger brother, who's eight, I would be hesitant to show him some PG movies because he doesn't seem to have the maturity level to handle even that. You can't have blanket rating system that works by age.
I would like to see a system close to the current one kept on the back of the box, but also have a more detailed description like this guy's proposal be available upon request. Perhaps that could be accomplished by barcode readers, an app for smart phones, or as a list printed out near the game if it's a major new release. Then parents who cared (you can't MAKE parents care or realize that games do contain potentially offensive material) could get a better sense of what was actually going on in the game.
Good parents have an idea of what will upset their child, and giving them a more detailed idea of what's in the game will help that. There just isn't enough room on the back of the box to put up finicky details, but for those many times when a child says, "Ooh, I want that!", it'd be nice not to have to go home and spend 30 minutes researching a title.
Good parents have an idea of what will upset their child, and giving them a more detailed idea of what's in the game will help that. There just isn't enough room on the back of the box to put up finicky details, but for those many times when a child says, "Ooh, I want that!", it'd be nice not to have to go home and spend 30 minutes researching a title.
heres the problem: its to allow the parents to make the decision based on content. doing this doesnt stop a 10 year old with his birthday money buying Duke Nukem. plus, parents already check the content warnings and mainly ignore the age ratings where i live.
The parents wont like this. It'd make them actually have to think about what they want their kids to see.
By the way, the term is "closed-minded" (even if 99% of the Internet says it wrong).Logan Westbrook said:
And you think this is limited to M-rated games? Clearly you haven't been reading about people's experiences trying to play Portal 2 co-op with random matchmmaking. Plus, news flash, the rating system isn't for your benefit and has bugger-all to do with who you prefer to play with online.Cid SilverWing said:
Bingo. There are websites out there dedicated to evaluating games for content-appropriateness. Even the ones whose writers have their own ideas of what's appropriate for whom and what isn't will generally list everything that could be considered objectionable just in case, giving enough information for any parent who has the brains to make their own decisions.TainInfernus said:
On the other hand, it would be nice if the games that are deliberately geared towards children and meant to be age appropriate would still give some indication to this effect. Games are a medium like television, but they are also still toys to some extent, and other toys only have to mention whether they're choking hazards or, in the case of some board games, whether the subject matter might go over a kid's head (e.g. Monopoly). There should be some things parents can just buy for their kids without having to pore over websites researching them, and I don't see why all video games have to be an exception to this.
But then they wouldn't be rated M anymore.XT inc said:
You're being intolerant of their view that homosexuality is wrong. What if their homophobic believes come from their religion, that's religious intolerance!Logan Westbrook said:
Please, let people have their beliefs and try to share them with others; by the same token, others can try to convince the "intolerant" that "intolerance" is wrong. Police actions, not thoughts, not words (exception for "fire" in a movie theater and a strict interpretation of inciting violence).
But who wants to read a 15-line description of every conceivable objectionable thing in a movie/game/TV show? Granted, the more you condense information, the more generic it becomes and thus the more useless.
Besides, it's my own experience that different kids can be completely sensitive to different things. I watch my PG animated movies with the kids I babysit all the time, they love them. (Pixar and Dreamworks offerings, for the most part.) Those kids are 4 and 2.5. Then another friend brings their 12, 10, and 7 year old kids over and they freak out over the same movie. Sheesh.
Personally, although I know this is particular to me only, the rating serves one purpose: how much freaking out am I liable to have to deal with over this particular piece of entertainment? Am I going to have to explain a lot of stuff as a result? After a while you sort of learn to predict.
In the end, though, the only good policy is to WATCH WHATEVER IT IS YOURSELF BEFORE YOU LET THE KID AT IT. If you can't be arsed to play a video game and see what's in it, then don't let your kids play video games.
Besides, it's my own experience that different kids can be completely sensitive to different things. I watch my PG animated movies with the kids I babysit all the time, they love them. (Pixar and Dreamworks offerings, for the most part.) Those kids are 4 and 2.5. Then another friend brings their 12, 10, and 7 year old kids over and they freak out over the same movie. Sheesh.
Personally, although I know this is particular to me only, the rating serves one purpose: how much freaking out am I liable to have to deal with over this particular piece of entertainment? Am I going to have to explain a lot of stuff as a result? After a while you sort of learn to predict.
In the end, though, the only good policy is to WATCH WHATEVER IT IS YOURSELF BEFORE YOU LET THE KID AT IT. If you can't be arsed to play a video game and see what's in it, then don't let your kids play video games.
