Psychologist Suggests Ditching Age Rating and Going With Content Instead

[Quantum Star]

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

The evil corporations who hunger for your money and get their sick sexual thrills by mentally sodomizing your children's impressionable young minds, transforming them into emotionally stunted puppets who will be unable to function in society at the most basic level. Those people would.

 

[notimeforlulz]

but rating systems should serve to inform and protect children from inappropriate material, not foster intolerance and close-mindedness.

Maybe you haven't met the moral brigade that decide what is and isn't appropriate for everyone else to watch. Are we remembering the hoo-haa over mass effect sex box lesbian kissing when we write that or not?

 

[notimeforlulz]

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.

Step 1: Withdraw smart phone from pocket
Step 2: Google "[INSERT MOVIE/GAME NAME HERE] Review"
Step 3: Read review
* 1 minute later *
Step 4: "Yes billy you can watch cars 2"

 

[PatrickXD]

How would this work in terms of a 5 year old child walking into the store and buying the latest GTA, it now being perfectly legal for him to purchase it because he deems it OK?

 

[Blind Sight]

Yeah, the ratings are usually inaccurate. Can someone explain to me how Crysis 2 has "partial nudity", or how Bulletstorm has "sexual themes"?

Nomad takes off his suit in flashbacks and early parts of the game, and Bulletstorm's use of sexualized swearing which makes them both qualify.

 

[Kilyle]

I don't have time to read through the whole thread right now, so sorry if someone's mentioned this already, but:

Someone mentioned that singling out homosexual behavior as a warning would be a bad thing, and that it ought to be slipped in with "sexual relationships" or "adult themes" or whatever.

I can't help but think that this will just make that entire category "guilty by association." For parents who feel strongly enough about homosexuality, they could just avoid half the games on earth because they don't know which ones do and which don't have the content they object to.

It's not just parents buying games for kids, either! Adults buying games for themselves ought to have the same info available. If the aim of the new ratings is to allow choices based on more clear information, then let's have that information available!

Not like we need more reasons for people to not buy games.

I do appreciate the move toward better info. For example, there's a lot of "adult" content I would not feel comfortable buying for my 7-year-old nephew, but I'm fine with him blowing zombie brains out on Left 4 Dead (although I'm not so happy about the swearing).

As far as the ratings themselves, I'm interested in the religious category ratings. I'd like to see what ground they cover.

Makes me think of Harvest Moon: Back to Nature. Here you have a game with a very respectful attitude toward religion, and a friendly priest others seek for advice, and the church gets attended by various town folk; even the kids think it's fun to hang out near the church. Wholly positive attitude, best I've ever seen in a game.

Only potential quibble, for certain religious folk I might recommend the game to, is that the religion is based on a harvest goddess.

Well, that and alcohol consumption. I mean, out of less than a dozen businesses, there's a bar AND a winery.

 

[kingmob]

They get into fewer fights [jand] have better grades in school.

That is the basis on which they decide kids do 'better'? A very strange end to an article that made complete sense. Kinds are supposed to fight and good grades are certainly not always an indication a kid is doing allright (I would almost argue it is the other way around for young kids). I'm surprised a psychologist would lump these together.

 

[subtlefuge]

They get into fewer fights [jand] have better grades in school.

That is the basis on which they decide kids do 'better'? A very strange end to an article that made complete sense. Kinds are supposed to fight and good grades are certainly not always an indication a kid is doing allright (I would almost argue it is the other way around for young kids). I'm surprised a psychologist would lump these together.

It's not causative, but it's asinine to say that doing better in school and not fighting as much are bad things.

Parents are informed of rating systems because Parents take interest in their kids' lives -----> Kids do better.

Bad grades at an early age are signs of lack of responsibility, early inability to deal with authority, and a highly accurate indicator of future success. Kids are supposed to fight, but if they get on the same page with their parents, they fight less.

 

[CthulhuMessiah]

I've been playing M rated video games since I was 12 and I never killed anyone, raped anyone, tortured anyone, performed arson, shot up my school, shot up a mall, blown up a car, performed genocide, or started a nuclear holocaust.

 

[SovietPanda]

can interject with a moment of clarity... ESRB an PEGI ratings are not inplace to inform parents on whats appropriate for their children, they're inplace to cover distributors from a legal standpoint for exposing minors to innapropriate material, age being the only instantly quantifiable measure of someones potential maturity and understanding of the world... they are so innaccurate because it is a massively conserivitve estimate of the appropriate age for many things so as not to be laid open to massive class actions. I mean living in australia i have my gripes with the rating system, but whats the alternative read a 4page description of any variety of potentially violent, explicit or otherwise confronting content in the game and then sign a waiver saying i fully understand the content of the game and have been fairly warned before i purchase. I say keep age based ratings and save a pimple faced teenage videogame store clerk from being sued and harrased for selling bmx XXX to tweens.

 

[SovietPanda]

(can't depict murder in music, for example)

im sorry but..... wow.... just wow. i really think thats all i need to say on that comment.

 

[JMeganSnow]

How would this work in terms of a 5 year old child walking into the store and buying the latest GTA, it now being perfectly legal for him to purchase it because he deems it OK?

It's *always* been legal for 5 year olds to buy mature games. There is no legal enforcement on game ratings. (In the U.S. anyway.) Retailers *voluntarily* refuse to sell these games to minors.

 

[JMeganSnow]

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.

Step 1: Withdraw smart phone from pocket
Step 2: Google "[INSERT MOVIE/GAME NAME HERE] Review"
Step 3: Read review
* 1 minute later *
Step 4: "Yes billy you can watch cars 2"

Reviews rarely cover the kind of in-depth information people might want. It's not like reviewers get paid to list how many times the actors say fuck and every 2-second flash of titty.

 

[PatrickXD]

How would this work in terms of a 5 year old child walking into the store and buying the latest GTA, it now being perfectly legal for him to purchase it because he deems it OK?

It's *always* been legal for 5 year olds to buy mature games. There is no legal enforcement on game ratings. (In the U.S. anyway.) Retailers *voluntarily* refuse to sell these games to minors.

Sorry, I live in the UK where it is actual law, and you get some hardcore jail time.

 

[JMeganSnow]

How would this work in terms of a 5 year old child walking into the store and buying the latest GTA, it now being perfectly legal for him to purchase it because he deems it OK?

It's *always* been legal for 5 year olds to buy mature games. There is no legal enforcement on game ratings. (In the U.S. anyway.) Retailers *voluntarily* refuse to sell these games to minors.

Sorry, I live in the UK where it is actual law, and you get some hardcore jail time.

Yeah, wasn't sure about that, hence why I said "in the U.S. anyway". Not sure why anyone would bother making it illegal what with torrents and all.

I figure, if you don't want your kids playing the games, don't get them a computer (or xbox, or ps3) with its own internet connection. It's a little harder for them to hide it when they have to install it and play it on YOUR machine.

Tell 'em they can have the gaming stuff when they can afford it with money they've earned themselves.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I would support more detailed descriptions of content on the box but having a nebulous systems of describers without the context of a single rating is probably going to only cause confusion.

 

[eriktheguy]

It's a sad day when game ratings can declare homosexual content on the packaging, thus terrifying 50% of parents and ensuring that no sane publisher will allow homosexual content in their games. I would hope that most countries constitutions would prevent this, but I don't think anti-discrimination laws apply to inanimate objects.
Who knows, games with homosexual content might get banned from Australia entirely (and have their metascores censored from the internet).

 

[Booze Zombie]

I'd feel a bit odd buying a game rated "D for dismemberment, G for gory and S for sexy", but I'll live.

 

[Sun Flash]

My mum bought me the original GTA when I was 5. She paid no attention to the box at all, and I think the big red 18 would give off more of a not for kiddywinks message than a detailed list of taboo things inside the box. I don't see what about a new system would make parents take any more care than they already are.

Plus I think PEGI's system is as good an indicator you can get without turning the lower half of the box into a wall of text.