If you're under 18, gaming is about to suck for you

[Thrik]

Just to clarify, have those intimating that young kids should be allowed anywhere near CoD4/5 actually played them? I was exposed to violent games and such at a pretty young age, but nothing as brutal as the executions in that. Of course, like someone said above it's also a matter of fidelity/graphics.

With regards to the discretion point, I do think the age ratings are guidelines more than anything else. The ideal situation is that if a game is rated a certain age, the parent plays the game and decides whether or not they're prepared to let the kid play it.

The problem is they obviously usually don't. Yet if you asked a parent if they'd let their kid watch a film called 'Virgin Blood Lust', you can guarantee they'd make sure they watch it first.

The problem is that parents quite widely presume games "can't be that bad", which is why letting a kid play an 18-rated game like Gears of War is treated with about as much seriousness as letting a kid play an 18-rated game like Heavy Rain with a full-blown rape scene. Maybe.

The whole point about a parent being able to decide whether or not it's okay for their kid to play an 18-rated game is rendered entirely null by virtue of the fact they don't even know what's in it. Not all 18-rated games are created equal.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Thrik

[Nachimir]

The problem underneath rating systems is that noone knows what effect this kind of content might have on kids, and noone wants to take the risk. There would be no way of getting an academic study of, say, the effect of Video game violence on kids past an ethics committee, and rightly so.

What we know seems to be:

1: Every new form of media generally creates moral panic directed at the medium but centred on content.

2: Societies cope with new forms of media and people eventually accept that it's not a direct cause of violence.

IMO, the more mature a human is, the less context they need built into something to properly understand it. "Mature content" is a label I see as pretty spurious since despite the extremity of it, there's very little that's grown up about that kind of titillation. The label doesn't so much name the content, but its suitable audience. Mature entertainment can include sex and violence, but does so with context.

My only worry about PEGI is that it's less well known than BBFC ratings. Parents can be so ignorant, and often don't give a shit, or assume "it's a game so it's for kids". The BBFC symbols have much better recognition due to being used on films here for 30 or more years.

[elmuerte]

I wonder why there's no rating system for books.

[James]

I wonder why there's no rating system for books.

I've wondered the same thing. Perhaps we assume that people (or specifically children) have ineffective imaginations. Or perhaps it's a residual sense that moving images are somehow magical.

I don't know if this is apocryphal, and I'm too lazy to check, but I heard that when trains were first introduced, high solid fences were constructed by the tracks because it was feared that the very sight of a thing moving so fast would drive a person mad. And it now seems quaint that at one point words seemed so mysterious and powerful that the right ones could directly control reality. Perhaps this is the same sort of thinking. Perhaps it's daft to imagine that mere exposure to these things will permanently distress or even corrupt a child. Perhaps that's not even the majority concern. Perhaps it's just like avoiding injuries: the child will get better, but it's not a positive experience.

I guess there is some sort of basis for this censorship in general societal behaviour. Most of us would not expose a child to the sight of people having sex, and would be even more vehement about it if it were in person.* It's a bit trickier with violence because obvious violence does not really have any comfortable place in polite society, although there are more subtle and insidious forms. Still, if we imagine ourselves in a violent situation with a child, I think most of us would attempt to protect the child from the sight as well as actual physical harm, and I don't think it's accepted that it's possible to become mentally scarred by these things. Of course, we are able to distinguish between fiction and reality, but at what point and at what pace does this ability develop? It almost certainly varies from case to case, probably by large degrees. I would subscribe to the "give ratings as guidelines and let parents judge according to their kids' development" stance.

Another point is that even if a child can distinguish between fiction and reality for each specific instance, repeated exposure to extreme material could influence their conception of certain norms (a similar concern is sometimes raised with regard to pornography). Of course, this could influence adults, too, although I imagine children would be more vulnerable to it.

As Nachimir points out, it's hard if not impossible to get any concrete, balanced and objective data on this subject, so it ends up being based on a collection of intuitions and vague signals and correlations.

_________

Thunderpeel raises an interesting point regarding the importance of story and context on the impact imagery has. It is indeed significant that there is some story of horribleness behind the people dying on the screen. Still, I think Doom was pretty extreme in its own ways -- if a modern game depicted a guy impaled on a spike, face up, limbs dangling, and occasionally twitching, it would probably be kind of horrific. At the time it was something that was delightfully morbid ("SO COOL!"). I wonder whether that's to do with context or just the fact that the poor fellow was pixelated enough to be safely seated (or impaled) on the far side of the uncanny valley.

_________

* I'm sure there are societies for which this isn't the case. Whether this means our society is needlessly prudish, or simply that we're preparing children for the norms of the society they're gradually becoming a part of, is a different discussion.

[elmuerte]

Ok.. so comics, they have visuals, but still no rating.

Also, kids know what knifes are, and when a book talking about using the knife to cut one's wrist, etc... I think a kid can put one and one together and produce some "interesting" results.

But I guess you're right. It probably has to do with fear from the unknown. And rather getting to know the unknown, put it out of sight just as if it isn't there.

A lot of stuff is getting regulated with the argument "we don't know what the (longterm) effects are, so it's better to avoid/limit/... it". And then there are things people ignore despite the (common) knowledge about what the effects are. Like baking in the sun for hours.

people are weird

[miffy495]

This debate is as stupid as two men talking about abortion. Go talk to a fucking pregnant woman.

Ahahahahaha! Well played.

As Thunderpeel correctly extrapolated though, I wasn't claiming bad parenting on that one so much as "Stupid fucking decision." For all I know the guy was a fantastic father and just made a bad call. Still, it was a bad call. And not even specifically for the violence. If it were something like Halo 3, which is just as violent, I'd be more comfortable with it. Part of my description of the game to the father though involved the admission that after certain parts of CoD4 I had to take some time to walk away and cope with what had happened. Dying from that nuke is one of the most powerful things a game has ever inflicted on me, and I made sure that the guy knew what his daughter would be in for. I got that game for my 20th birthday, and I still had trouble with some moments.

I have a nephew the same age as that kid, and I'll be damned if I show him anything like that before I know he's good and fucking ready. His parents don't play anything at all, so now that he's developing an interest in gaming they rely on me to tell them what's appropriate. CoD4? Not anytime soon.

[thorn]

I wonder why there's no rating system for books.

I think because that industry is much older and more developed and has put together certain styles that indicate genre and suggested age; cover pictures, thickness of book, size of text and position in library/bookstore. The games industry doesn't have any similar distinctions; games for adults can have the same visual style, packaging and marketing as games for kids. Only the ratings set them apart.

And, for what it's worth, there was discussion in the UK last year about having coloured bands on books to define their appropriate audience. This is the website of a group opposed to the banding. I can't seem to find any information about who was pro- the rating system.

[ThunderPeel2001]

The problem underneath rating systems is that noone knows what effect this kind of content might have on kids.

I don't think we need a study about this, but I see your point: For the people deciding on the "rules", how do THEY decide. I guess that only puts more pressure on parents NOT to take ratings at face value and for the rating makers themselves to err on the side of caution -- pretty much the situation we're in, I guess.

My only worry about PEGI is that it's less well known than BBFC ratings. Parents can be so ignorant, and often don't give a shit, or assume "it's a game so it's for kids". The BBFC symbols have much better recognition due to being used on films here for 30 or more years.

Yeah, definitely. It's quite shocking that even oversized (they make them bigger on games) "18" BBFC symbols are often ignored by parents -- and it's upsetting that many parents don't understand that games have matured to the point where they can be as powerful as movies.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Ok.. so comics, they have visuals, but still no rating.

Wrong. Comics have had a rating system since the early 80s.

[elmuerte]

I've never seen any rating identification on a comic, not even on Marvel comics. In fact, I can't find any covers (online) that contain a rating. I only see the rating mentioned (sometimes) in Marvel's online-catalog. Or at least, they're not a clearly visible as the movie and game ratings.

[Nachimir]

Also, kids know what knifes are, and when a book talking about using the knife to cut one's wrist, etc... I think a kid can put one and one together and produce some "interesting" results.

True, but imagery enters the unconscious mind far more directly than text (i.e. memory techniques tend to revolve around parsing textual or verbal data into imagery, which can be recalled far more easily later and quickly decoded). What the difference in effect might be, noone knows of course.

On comic ratings, there are imprints like DC's Vertigo, labelled "For mature readers only", though not sure if there's any explicit age set or recommended for this. If so, it's not obvious by the labeling.

A lot of stuff is getting regulated with the argument "we don't know what the (longterm) effects are, so it's better to avoid/limit/... it".

Germany being a great example of this right now, talking about banning even the production of violent games as a knee-jerk reaction to school shootings, despite evidence against any correlation.

[James]

Part of my description of the game to the father though involved the admission that after certain parts of CoD4 I had to take some time to walk away and cope with what had happened. Dying from that nuke is one of the most powerful things a game has ever inflicted on me, and I made sure that the guy knew what his daughter would be in for. I got that game for my 20th birthday, and I still had trouble with some moments.

Actually, this might be a case where the material would be more distressing for an adult than a child, depending on how much they've been exposed to certain images and ideas. I'm not sure how prominent ideas of nuclear Armageddon are in the contemporary child's psyche. It wasn't until comparatively recently that I came to appreciate quite how horrendously destructive such a thing would be in human terms. I think to kids perhaps it will just be some snazzy visual effects.

Then again, nightmares about bombs and missiles with apocalyptic properties (some supernaturally so) are the only long-term recurring dream I can remember having (I don't dream about them with much frequency at all, but I have done so on a number of occasions spread over many years). They seriously upset me in a way I couldn't fully account for once I woke up. I guess that's how nightmares go. Anyway, perhaps I'm completely misjudging. I don't know. I think I'd find that stuff more profound now than as a child, though. The nuclear stuff, that is. It's a case where context actually makes it more potent and frightening.

[OssK]

If you got a little french in you I might dare to advertise my own crap :

http://bbdg.fr/index.php?page=l_emission&id=19

It's a video on violence in video games in French.

At the en I basically say (spoiler alert, if you understand french go whach it !)

There is a correleation between school shootings and video games, one that cannot be denied, what can be argued is if there is a causation or not.

Basically, they played video games and killed peoples, now these two things are, the question you might want to ask is "are video games creating killers or are killers attracted to video games"

[James]

It's the guitar music that makes them do it.

[elmuerte]

There's also a correlation between school shootings and gun ownership. There also a correlation between shootings and reading books/watching movies/listening to classical music.

Correlation doesn't mean shit, specially not when there is no objective and confirmable measurement.

[James]

I'm telling you, music with guitars in will destroy Western civilization.

[ThunderPeel2001]

We've all been kids (which is why the "two men talking about an abortion" analogy is completely irrelevant). We all watched things above our supposed age range. We've all been affected by things.

This isn't about bitching about parenting. (If anything it's about highlighting the problems that parents face -- ignorance of the potential power of games/technology that their kids are into.) It's also not about media hysteria.

Nobody here believes that a child is going to go on a killing spree because of games they've witnessed, but some games could certainly upset and disturb them!

As someone who definitely wants kids one day, I'm interested in finding a balance between respecting the intelligence of a child while not upsetting and disturbing them.

[Nachimir]

U.S. Secret Service: "Only 1 in 8 school shooters showed any interest in violent video games; only 1 in 4 liked violent movies."

Additionally, violent crime in Western nations has apparently declined, while simultaneously the popularity of games has increased.

[OssK]

We've all been kids (which is why the "two men talking about an abortion" analogy is completely irrelevant). We all watched things above our supposed age range. We've all been affected by things.

I've been a pregnant woman too, or is that Chris's "I can't remember if it was a dream or not" syndrom ?

[Wurtsi]

C'mon guys, you CANNOT compare the likes of Mortal Kombat, Doom or GTA1 with modern gaming (I know no-one has mentioned MK, yet, but I can sense it coming). The storytelling has taken leaps and bounds over what we experienced, it's as sophisticated as and nearly as visually realistic as film. I stand by my comments about CoD4.

I think this kind of makes my analogy relevant.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I think this kind of makes my analogy relevant.

Lol. I see what you're saying now.... But we had movies when we were growing up, so we know what their impact was like on our fragile little minds Saying games are capable of having a similar impact to movies doesn't require us to revert into children make sure -- does it?