Game Ratings Do Not Cut It When Bad Parents Have Their Way - News

This is one of the debates that will rage on to the ages.

I'll just start by saying, I'm not a parent. I cannot talk for parents, so I will not try to.

However, from my parents raising me, I was led relatively solidly by age ratings. When I was 5-8 I could play 7s, when I was 8-10 I could play 10s, 11-14 I could play 12s, 15-17 I could play 16s and after I turned 18 I could play what I wanted.

Honestly, I think that's one of the best ways to do it. I don't buy into the thing about violent games raising violent children, as a child has enough of a concept of right and wrong to know otherwise. If they have been raised properly.

But I also believe that the ratings are there for a reason, and that they should be enforced. They are flouted against other similar ratings because they are not law and I think New Zealand has the right idea and I can't wait for it to come to England.

I just hope that that little boy is taught right and wrong soon, before he takes the lives of other children from responsible parents.

@Calmador
"Those of you defending violent video games affect on children are complete morons, in denial, or just ignorant"

• WHAT!? you state that you played Mortal Kombat at a young age and got into a lot of fights due to some slight influence. On the same lines, i also played Motal Kombat from a very young age and i've never been in a fight, i was barely 7 when the first game came out and my older brother 10. We rented MK2 for the Mega Drive a good few times.
  I'm not saying games can't have an influence but it doesn't always. Some people can tell the difference between right and wrong, and what you do on games isn't always what you should do in the real world.
  
  Parents who buy R rated or 18+ rated games for kids under 6 are morons - there's a lot of difference between a 5 year old and a 8 year old. I heard once of a woman buying a game in such a way only to come back days later complaining about the content, saying it wasn't suitable for her 11 year old son and that they should remove the game from their shelves. - i've no idea what she was expecting buying a game that clearly stated on the case it was for people 18 and over.

Great read Stephen.

If by super white you mean " of irish and Scottish heritage" then yes, had no idea that was a super power!

working in retail its very aggravating wen i see this happen, ive had a coworker look at a parent and say "the motto for this game is you kill the hooker and you get your money back", she was of course talking about GTA:SA

I played Mortal Kombat at a young age... and I got in a lot of fights as a kid... did Mortal Kombat Influence me? Probably yes.. was it mainly the video games fault no but I know it sure as hell helped because the violence is something I'd think about a lot and I also felt less sympathy about hurting other people when I did in comparison of before.... it made me more callous.

Those of you defending violent video games affect on children are complete morons, in denial, or just ignorant. Kids get easily influenced by the such content... I was one of them. It's bad for you at a young age [period] It's even "arguably" bad or you as an adult. I played horror games like condemned and Dead Space and I started having nightmares for a week.

Good Parenting is a luxury idiots.... and even then things can go wrong. Government needs to step in and make a solid law against this trash behavior.

I sell used videogames at my local flea market, at the same happen with me. A guy with two kids around 8 and 6, and asks me for Grand Theft Auto IV, i tell him i got it and i ask if the game is for him, and he tells me that it is for his sons. I explain him that this game is very violent and all that stuff but he ignores my explanation and tells me that his kids watch worst stuff in TV. Then when the kids shoots someone they will blame on me haha.

Is the Writer super white? Lil doesn't reference the kids innocence, his parents or whomever gave him the name probably did so because he's a little kid.

That's where the ratings sadly fail. If the parents don't give a shit about the ratings, then they're completley useless.

@d21lewis: being best friends with your child is the only proper way to go. You're doing it right, my respect to you.

A 4 year old will want to play just any game where you have to walk & shoot and he does not give two shits about what actually goes on. It is pretty much safe.

I could see a 8 to 10 year-old playing Grand Theft Auto, but not a 4 year old. Difference being, the age and maturity level of an 8 to 10 year old is light years ahead of a 4 year old who cannot tell reality from fantasy.

Funny reading this article because at 12 am midnight yesterday I was at Gamestop for Fallout: New Vegas. Needless to say, there were a couple 12 to 14 year olds without parents picking it up and a few younger than 18,.

I think you need to treat the age groups differently. 10 to 18 year olds are, for the most part, mature enough for M rated video games. Younger than 10 years old needs to be treated like an adult supplying liquor to minors.

Let me just say that I loved your article Stephen. I'm probably going to write a satire about violent video games later along the road.
I'm an avid gamer, have been since I could pick up a controller at the tender age of four. HOWEVER, I just turned 17. The first M-rated game I bought? Genji. For PS2. In 2010. Yes, in a world where gritty and "realistic" takes top honors, I still stuck to my childish Nintendo/Sony roots. I've played countless titles over the course of my 17 years and still only played a few M-rated games (I subsequently bought Bayonetta and bought Bioshock for a friend). It really irks me that parents are really uninformed about the real nature of violent games, and how "mature" their children really are. Dude, take a college Psych class, realize that they're only in the second and third stages of Piaget's theory. They haven't reached formal operational thinking yet. And isn't that the same child that still cares about cooties and laughs when breasts are on a screen?
I think the main reason that kids really want this stuff is because of the way the games are advertised in media. It's kinda like how the Genesis attracted smaller kids to buy games because "their older brothers had it." It doesn't matter that Kirby's Epic Yarn had a higher Gamerankings percentage (not to mention better reviews) than Medal of Honor, it's just that MOH is "What everyone else is playing."
I really want to advocate a restructuring of the ESRB. I saw a really tacky commercial at blockbuster the other day with some mother checking her iPhone and game box to decide a title for her son. Who in the world does that? Certainly not the eight-year-old's parent at an EB Games trying to get Mercenaries 2 for her son (Although the employee turned her away. Nice EB guy!)
I really congratulate my parents and the ones like them who don't let their children play excessively violent games. It's because of them that I got interested in Katamari, Jak and Daxter, and even Final Fantasy. So thanks but no thanks Black Ops, I'll stick with my Super Mario Galaxy 2 thank you.

For the record, I'm not judging anyone on here, nor am I saying that kids can't play games when they are young. I played Mortal Kombat at age 9, and nothing happened to me. But if you seriously think that a 4 year old, one that barely has a grasp on whether Santa Clause is real or not, should play GTA San Andreas then you have problems.

All I can say is most kids I know start playing (or watching others play) M-rated games between the ages of 10 & 12.

I don't think this is about videogames at all if you think about it.

Also selling alcohol to a kid could quite possibly result in it's death. It's just a little bit more severe.

@MozBlue.

but holding the parents legal responsible i see is a fail option too. removing the children if true neglect/harm is show im more comfortable with. legislating too protect the few at the cost of the many is unacceptable. its already happening too much

I find it hard to believe the best answer is either incarcerating them or finically crippling them.

counseling, or removing the children, at taxpayers burden.

as for children of the killing sprees or violent offenders. until 18 juvenile court, rehabilitation, and state homes if need be. after 18 adult rules apply.


i don't really like the levels of incarceration we have for our society.

things legalizing drugs and taxing them, could increase control, reduce numbers of people in jail, and provided needed counseling off the increased tax revenue and decreased prison population. it would have a nice side effect of lowering violent crime by cutting gang revenues… if pricing is done right

i was around 12 when GTA san Andreas came out and that and GTA1, 3 and vice city were the most violent games i played besides some manhunt. I was never violence and for some reason back then knew it was fantasy and knew i couldn't go stealing a jet and jumping out and survive.

@ rakugakist
I'm sorry but you are either a kid yourself, or part of the problem that this article is dead right about and therefore an idiot parent.

If we just let parents make their own decisions for their kids then there would be no need for social workers, which we need a lot more of by the way. It's appauling to me, to think that there are people like you who think that just because it's not drugs or alcohol that it's okay to buy a game like that for a kid. I seriously find it horrifying that this is what our society has come to and that there are so many people like you out there.

However I'm glad that there are still reasonable and sane people out there like the one who wrote this article.

I absolutely agree with this article a billion trillion gazillion percent. When my parents let me play Wolfenstein 3D at the tender age of three (true story), I changed right there. I suddenly became a violent young man, and at the age of 15 I went on a mad killing spree spanning seven states, all thanks to that game. We all know video games make everyone more violent, just look at me for a perfect example. I had such horrible parents.

Oh yes I was being sarcastic there. The only true statement I made was that I played Wolf 3D at three. There's no proof whatsoever that video games have any effect on anyone, regardless of age. People that want age-restricting laws are the people who have no clue what they're talking about. When someone says they committed a murder and GTA was their inspiration, they're just trying to push the blame from themselves about 99% of the time. the other 1% comes from the actually mentally unstable people. But regardless, it allows moronic lawyers and politicians to say "Hey, these games are damaging and destroying our youth! Let's ban them!". It really is a case of someone thinking they know what's best for everyone.

I'd gladly let my kids play any game they please (when I have some), because they'd be able to tell fantasy from reality. It's one of the first things you learn. My parents let me play Wolf 3D because all I got from the game is you press a button on the keyboard, and a gun fires on screen. If an enemy is in front of my gun, he dies. Did I try this in real life ever? Hell no, because I knew it wasn't real.

In New Zealand it's legal for a guardian to buy games - or indeed alcohol - for people under their guardianship.

I was allowed access to games years before I met their official ratings, I don't think they did me any harm at all. Kids do have a decent sense of whats real and what isn't believe it or not.

I hate to harp on logic as well, but video games don't necessarily create messed up kids.

Let's let the parents make their own decisions for their children.

If you want to intrude, you had your chance when you merely said, "this game is pretty rough from what I hear." You could have done a better job.

And comparing alcohol to video games to alcohol is ridiculous. Alcohol has a physical effect that can seriously mess with kids. There has been no proof of this with video games.

This article is ridiculous.

Ya that's wierd. I started playing M games at 10 years old but couldn't even be in the same room with one at 4. And even at the age of 10 I couuld'nt own a game with nudity. Now all that's behind me and I can play but I wan't. But giving gta to a 4 year old is awful.

It's the "You can't tell me how to raise my kid mentality" that's landed society in the mess it's in today.
It's just got totally out of hand, whilst in an ideal world the Government would only offer guidance to parents that fact is a lot parents seem to even brush aside advise in a "you can't tell me what to do" teenage strop esc way.

Whilst a lot of people are more then capable of raising their children to be civil human beings the sad fact is that lots can't. Which means it's down to the government to create laws that help reduce the damage that rubbish parents cause to their more then likely accidental offspring.

It's not like legally enforceable age restrictions on games actually stop you from letting little Jimmy play GTA but by making it a law makes people stop and think about it more then they do if it's just a suggestion.

Ages restriction on Videos (probably a better comparison then alcohol) have been legally enforceable in many countries for years. Has that stopped parents from letting their children from watching videos under age? No. But it does give the courts more power to prosecute negligent parents when little Jimmy goes on a killing spree because he was allowed to watch SAW when he was 6. Which in turn leads to more (not all maybe but more) parents stopping to think about what they let their kids play and watch.

At the end of the day actions have consequences and generally the few spoil it for the many.
If every parent took care of their children properly then legal ages restrictions wouldn't be needed. But the fact is that many parents in the modern would take fuck all interest in their kids and their development, which mean laws like enforceable age restrictions are needed to give those kids at least a chance to make something of themselves when they grow up.

parents should not even dare blaming games on there children's behavior if u can't be bo bothered to look at a label or decern a sign saying GRAPHIC VIOLENCE then don't blame anyone but yourself when u're kid starts acting up. Some parents are just an embarrasment.

so we would not be allowed to raise our children how we see fit anymore?

maybe they do not see it as damaging to the child but a celebration of the arts, who are we to judge their methods. until the child is harmed physically, or harms others, commits crimes, i see no reason to interfere

honestly the booze law parallel bothers me. mainly because i remember going to a grocery store with my brother when i was 24 (which means i was a legal guardian in the state of TN, and just a few years before that point could have legally given him booze if i had bought it) and being refused to buy beer because i had him with me.

the clerk made up a law, and the manager proceeded to back him. it was a moralistic move that said i would share my beer with my underage brother. this was not going to happen as my goal was simply to drop my brother off at my mothers and drink some beer and watch MNF at my place.

I have never shopped there again

@ Phoenix3309
You nailed it!; Fiction!. Its all fiction. If parents dont teach their children whats real and whats not, then they failed as a parent.

In my defense, my kid likes EVERYTHING that I like including comics, wwe, hannah Montana (I fake liking it so she will) and batman. She's my best friend. I do discipline her and read/do homework/play with doll babies/etc, too. It's a balance of good and evil.

My nine year old daughter and I beat halo reach and resident evil 5 together (we beat lego indiana jones, too!). She plays kid games too but, yeah.....I'm horrible!

Can't be done simply through communication. Who's going to do it? The gaming industry? why would they spend money educating parents when all that will do is cost them money for no actual benefit to what's most important to the industry: making money. So for them to do it the govt would have to mandate ongoing public education, which the industry would only implement reluctantly and do the barest minimum. Hence industry lead education would work about as much as a (non-mandatory) industry lead public education campaign about the ills of smoking; i.e. it wouldn't work. Hence FAIL

Should the govt do it? Well as argued above it seems people don't want the govt telling them what to do, so the public in general wouldn't listen to a govt campaign. And the target audience: ignorant and negligent parents are the least likely to listen, so the audience that will pay attention are the ones that are doing the right thing under a voluntary system anyway. Hence FAIL

So that brings us to the question of what should the law do when it comes to parents/parenting? In my view (as a parent and a gamer) the law should support and reinforce the decisions of reasonable/good parents, and it should protect children from bad/negligent parents. So as a (I think) reasonable parent this is what I want from the law: It is illegal to sell an age restricted game directly to a person who is not at or above the age restriction (i.e. the rating system needs to identify age appropriateness not be a letter based rating which is hard for a parent to relate to): as a parent I want to know that my kids aren't able to buy material that I might consider inappropriate, and I know as a parent my kids don't have a decent sense of what's appropriate for them and what's not. It should be illegal for anyone who isn't the legal guardian or parent to supply an age restricted game to an under-age child: again as a parent I don't want someone else making decisions which should be mine to make in respect of what material my kids see/play, if someone supplies material I think it totally inappropriate for my kids I want to be able to report that person to the authorities and I want the law to have sufficient teeth for there to be serious consequences for such action. It should be illegal for parents to supply age restricted games to under-age children where there is a substantial difference between the age of the child and the age restriction of the game: Reasonable / good parents shouldn't feel like they are breaking the law by allowing their 14-year old to play a 16 rated game when they think that the game's age restricting elements are sufficiently mild, and their child is mature enough. But, despite the protestations of some people here, in my view an 18 rated game should never be played by a 10-year old kid. 99% of 10-year olds simply lack the mental, emotional and intellectual maturity to process the sort of imagery to which they'll be exposed in an 18-rated game (and most 16 rated games too). So some kids need to be protected from their parents (and from themselves), so there needs to be some legal accountability for a parent who has given their 3-year old a GTA game to play.

lol welcome to mexico...

I remember after the time MW2 was released i was at my local Bestbuy when i saw a kid under 10yrs old with his dad. The kid tells his dad that he wants MW2 as i look from a distance. The dad says 'im not sure if its appropriate for you, this game doesnt seem right for you' while looking at the M rating on the cover. When i saw that i was like 'thats a good dad'. The kid goes 'but thats the game all of my friends are playing' , and the dad just gives in so easly. In my head, that dad just lost the 'Dad of the year award' and its his own dam fault if his kid becomes messed up in the future for being too lenient and its not video games fault.

Parents need to step up and play their role as a parent before letting their kids play anything they want and taking over their decisions.

Gamers need to stop acting like banning mature content from children will somehow limit free speech or stifle game developer's vision. Mature games are for mature people and kids are not mature by definition no matter how much they argue they are. They also don't have a constitutionally protected right to free speech. A couple generations ago you could just rely on parents to keep mature content out of their kids hands, but now it seems too many parents have no idea what they are doing and unfortunately it is society that has to step because not all retailers are responsible enough to explain why GTA is not appropriate for a spoiled little brat's 4th birthday.

well I'm 14 and i dont think playing games older than me is that bad. My parents didnt let me play games with swearing in them until i got to the age when basically every child knows those words and the only games ive ever not been aloud was vice city and san andreas and i didnt play GTA until 4 . I do agree its stupid giving that little kid san andreas, but its not as much a serious problem as you say, by now(presuming this all happened when it just came out) that kid will know all these will be playing violent games and that wouldnt have changed even if he wasnt playing these when he was 3 or something.

I'm actually a gamer and a mother of a 13 yr old. My son has been playing games along side with me since he was able to hold a controller. In my opinion it's really up to the parent what their kids can and can't play. Personally I let my child play Grand Theft Auto at a young age but I was there to explain to him that it was fiction and guide him to understand the difference between right and wrong. Now at 13 he has turned out to be one of the most respectful young men I know. I'm really proud of him. Still I understand that there are a lot of parents out there (especially those who don't play video games) that really don't pay attention to their children and what they are playing. It's really unfortunate that this happens and I wish more parents took the time to become more involved in their childrens lives.

I had to grasp the concept of sarcasm before I was able to get mature games >.> I needed to convince my mother that for me to imitate those actions would be absurd and impossible and this was when I was like 13 1/2. However I am surprised from time to time like when I saw a parent bring a 4 year old to watch 300 and another time when I saw a 5 year old at Watchmen. I

And exactly this kind of Parents declare themselfes as a perfect, flawless example for Family-living. And when the Kid gets aggressive, it is fault of the Game.

It's just going too dam far... and you know guys this is what we know... imagine what we don't know. It can always be worse. Simply put their are some horrible parents out there... Im not going give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are ignorant ... they're adults/parents and they SHOULD know.

I say yes to a law that punishes adults who sells a game that's inappropriate to a minor. I'd think 1 warning be given first just to be fair to those that truly aren't aware.

I fully agree. My kids (4,7, and 8) do not get the gory horrible games. When I played Wii's brutal and offensive game, Mad World, I did not play while they were up as its constant brutality and language was not something they need. I buy games for them that are generally up to the Teen rating and simply avoid games with bad voice content and any sexual references.

This is my same rules for movies, they don't see R movies. When they are more mature teens then that will be a different story, but for know, they don't need their perception of the world to be formed by the imaginations of twisted individuals. I prefer their view of the world to be based on life's best, not its worst. They'll see the worst eventually anyways, when they are capable of understanding in the context of ... well life.

That's pretty shocking, although aren't you supposed to refuse the sale if it's clear that it's being sold to someone under the age rating?

Wow any mature rated game is not appropriate for a 3yr i don't care what the parents think! Also stephen did you persuade the woman to buy something else or did she end up getting GTA anyway?

This.