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

[elmuerte]

maybe parents will actually pay attention to them.

hahaha

good one

[Garple]

Yeah, but what about your (future) kids?

hmm... hadn't really thought about it. Will I have to lock up the M rated games while I'm not home? I wonder if I'd still play video games if I had kids. Maybe I'd go for just the nintendo platforms.

[elmuerte]

I know a few older people with kids who play games with their kids, and not just the games with rating which fit their physical age. Not sure how well it goes, but I guess we'll hear how many their kids will kill when it happens.

[OssK]

In fact when I'll have kids, what will happen is that I will come back home, plug a cable in the back of their neck put on my brain vision googles, take the controller and play an FPS inside their head to kill the bad words they learned in school in the grossest way...

[Karimi]

Now if only we could come up with something equally rigorous to make sure our kids aren't playing shitty games...

[OssK]

If you're thinking of a question that controls the age of people, you should definitely find something that cannot be answered by a Google search, so find a procedural question that only adults can answer...

[Karimi]

I was thinking more like making sure my kids don't play Stalin vs. Martians

[OssK]

I was thinking more like making sure my kids don't play Stalin vs. Martians

Ouch, borderthought detected on my part, do you mean preventing people from making such games or am I misunderstanding ?

[Karimi]

Ouch, borderthought detected on my part, do you mean preventing people from making such games or am I misunderstanding ?

I was making a joke at the time :we can prevent kids from playing games with certain content, lets find a way of preventing them from playing poor games as well.

Since I failed at humor I guess I can try to make it an argument.

[James]

It feels so good to be past the age where these things matter.

The problem arises if it starts forcing developers to tone down their material to reach a large enough market, I'd say. Not that I'm some sort of gore-hound, but I don't want things to seem artificially neutered, either. Then again, looking through my game collection from this generation, I'm surprised how high the proportion of BBFC 18-rated games is, which has always been legally enforced, so perhaps developers aren't too concerned with UK ratings. Perhaps kids get everything bought for them anyway. A flatmate at university bought San Andreas for our communal PS2 when it came out, and on the bus home saw a mother who had also bought it for her two pre-teen sons looking fairly concerned about the content. That's anecdotal, of course, but if enough people fail to respect even the familiar and highly visible BBFC ratings, what's the chance of their respecting a much less familiar (albeit Europe-wide) system, particularly when they never see it in a context that they can relate to?

I wouldn't want to say anything too strongly one way or the other on the subject, though, as I really don't know how people tend to behave with regards to all that stuff. As long as the content available to adults doesn't change, I don't mind too much.

As a side-note, I do get concerned about what some kids are playing, but in retrospect I was playing the original GTA when I was 13, and the Doom games before that (ten or eleven, even), both of which had some pretty gruesome imagery. Did the lack of visual fidelity protect me from psychological damage, or did I just happen to be sufficiently balanced and resistant to nastiness? Or am I being hypocritical? Or was I actually fucked up by that stuff and just haven't realized it?

To continue the tangent, as we become more accustomed to ever-more-realistic graphics, will the content of older games become less shocking and dangerous, even to those who have no experience of them? Will the children of the future be better equipped to handle the original Doom than the children of 1993? Or will it always be recognizable enough to be a concern?

I guess at least the PEGI system has smaller bands.

[miffy495]

I don't know if it's so much a fidelity thing. While you were 13 playing GTA, I was in a similar boat with Vice City. I picked that one up when I was 14, no adult even in sight. The clerk said "You're not 18, are you?" and then shrugged and rang up the sale. Vice City, I think we can all agree, is much worse than GTA1. I believe I was playing Doom at age 7. I always feel slightly hypocritical when my work makes me ask for ID on M rated games. On the other hand, I do support the system and wouldn't have sold Vice City to me were I in that cashier's shoes back in 2002. I'm that cashier that will most likely be considered boring by most parents because when they're buying a game for their child I'll give them the heads up on what I would consider the most potentially inappropriate stuff. Does feel great when that 1 in every bunch of parents actually seems to care and consider what I'm saying though. Every little bit, right?

[elmuerte]

I played Phantasmagoria at age 14 (yay, more anecdotal evidence), and now I kill people for a living... no wait, I don't.

[OssK]

I played doom when I was like 12 I think ? Now I'm a pimp or someting, I make people pay me to kill other people.

Sounds cooler than designer hu ?

[ThunderPeel2001]

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 that the ultra realistic POV opening to COD4 is pretty extreme: You're beaten, driven through a war-torn city where you witness civilians being rounded up and executed. Then you're tied to a pole and then executed yourself... all in ultra-realistic first person. In your first mission you're told to shoot and kill, not just unarmed, but sleeping, crewmen. I just don't think that's appropriate for an 8 year old. Call me crazy.

I DO believe that someone around 15 is more than capable of dealing with it. But it doesn't make anyone a hypocrite to say that there IS a cut off point! None of us were exposed to the types of stuff in games they have now.

Oddly enough, I don't think it's the "gore", but rather the intent. I watched Die Hard when I was about 12 and LOVED it. Sure, there is violence, but there was a goodie, saving the day! Same goes for Lethal Weapon and Aliens. Even Predator. But, for example, I watched RoboCop around the same time and was pretty disturbed/upset by the horrendously evil torture scene at the beginning... The intent was a lot different.

[Nevsky]

Not really much to add to the discussion, so I'll chime in with the mid-to-late-80s births, and say I was 8-15 during the releases of Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem 3D, and the first bunch of GTAs.

Hopefully the kids of mature/inquisitive mind will be able to make a good case for playing these 18-rated games to their parents. 'But, I'm learning about WW2! And there are zombies! Pleeeease?'

Or, conversely, parents wishing to expose their kids to good mature games such as Mass Effect, will be able to do so too. [Or even more disturbing games like Call of Duty 4 - which can be presented with context and explanation]

Wow, you hit an age gate when searching the classifications database on the PEGI website - you have to be over 18 to even be informed, it seems. (Of course, it's easily flummoxed, but it's the message it puts out).

[miffy495]

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...

...None of us were exposed to the types of stuff in games they have now.

I believe my previously mentioned exposure to Vice City may qualify. The latest GTAs are about on par in terms of mature content. We're talking heyday of the PS2, and about as out there as the system got, with the possible exception of the other two GTAs and Manhunt. Was only a console generation ago. Hell, I still play PS2 games. I consider them very much relevant and modern gaming. As I said though, I also agree that there should be a cutoff point, and that in hindsight I wouldn't have allowed myself to buy that game. Unfortunately for the ratings systems, this is not because of the game's rating but because I keep myself informed on game content. While I wouldn't have been comfortable giving myself Vice City, giving my 13-year-old self a Metal Gear game probably wouldn't have caused me any grief. *double-checks* Yup. Same rating.

Your CoD4 thing does hit a nerve. Just Friday a father and two children (the older of which can't have been more than 8 or 9) were asking me which Call of Duty was better. The father asked me this, and I assumed the game was for him, so I told him that 4 was the better game (true) but that I would make sure that the kids didn't watch me playing it were I in his position. I then described some of the more harrowing moments in the game to illustrate its child-unfriendliness. He immediately thanked me, bought the game, and gave it to his young daughter, who told me she mostly liked playing online anyway so the scary story bits wouldn't be so bad. God. Fucking. Dammit.

[Thrik]

Should have told him there's a well explicit bit of sex in it. Human intimacy seems to frighten parents a lot more than intense violence.

[elmuerte]

He immediately thanked me, bought the game, and gave it to his young daughter, who told me she mostly liked playing online anyway so the scary story bits wouldn't be so bad.

And that's the reason why I don't play online games. Damn annoying kids everywhere.

So.. the fuss is that you failed to educate the parent in order for him to bring up his daughter? So, you think he's a bad parent? You think the daughter will become a defect because of playing this game? I think she can't make a distinction between fiction and reality?

[Thrik]

I wouldn't ever go so far as to say an incident like that is enough to call someone a bad parent, but I would definitely call that parental decision fuckin' stupid.

Call of Duty 4 and 5 go that little bit further than most games, in that there are some very grisly and dark moments. I think I'd rather an 8-year-old see the grandiose gore of Gears of War than certain scenes in CoD, as the latter are specifically designed to be unsettling even for adults.

You seem to be implying that there's some kind of of behavioural aspect to this discussion though, elmuerte. I don't think anyone here is going Jack Thompson and saying kids are going to start copying what they see in these games, are they? It's purely a matter of what we're comfortable letting kids see.

[ThunderPeel2001]

So.. the fuss is that you failed to educate the parent in order for him to bring up his daughter? So, you think he's a bad parent? You think the daughter will become a defect because of playing this game? I think she can't make a distinction between fiction and reality?

Why did you write this? It feels like an attempt to provoke an argument about something which doesn't exist. (Ie. troll.) Miffy clearly wasn't saying this, and this discussion isn't really about it, either.

I think we can all agree that children shouldn't be exposed to EVERYTHING.

Edited June 22, 2009 by ThunderPeel2001

[ThunderPeel2001]

Your CoD4 thing does hit a nerve. Just Friday a father and two children (the older of which can't have been more than 8 or 9) were asking me which Call of Duty was better. The father asked me this, and I assumed the game was for him, so I told him that 4 was the better game (true) but that I would make sure that the kids didn't watch me playing it were I in his position. I then described some of the more harrowing moments in the game to illustrate its child-unfriendliness. He immediately thanked me, bought the game, and gave it to his young daughter, who told me she mostly liked playing online anyway so the scary story bits wouldn't be so bad. God. Fucking. Dammit.

It's pretty outstanding that parents can behave so annoyingly. I witnessed something similar with Vice City. A woman was asking about it for a present for a 10 year old child, the store clerk, said, "yes, it's a good game, but it's not suitable for a child...". Advice ignored, she bought it anyway, threatening to go ballistic when they clerk tried to chime in with, "I can't let you buy this if you're saying it's for a 10 year old" (the clerk was young, too, probably only 16!).

She obviously didn't believe that the game contained anything too bad.

I felt like saying aloud to my gf, "Oh yeah! That's the game you can have sex with a prostitute with, then cut her head off with a chainsaw and get your money back!". Admittedly, I'm sure it sounds a hell of a lot worse than it is actually depicted in the game (never actually done that), but dammit, the game REALLY isn't suitable for kids! (The clerk wasn't just trying to piss her off!)

I had similar experiences when I worked in a record store: Parents buying South Park paraphernalia (Cds/posters) for their 8 and 9 year olds... Which happened a lot. (A LOT.)

We used to think "do these parents KNOW what goes on in South Park??". They'd catch our expressions, or when it came to buying the CDs, listen to our warnings, and sometimes laugh and say things like, "it's only a cartoon!". Then, when one of them actually overheard the CD, they'd bring it straight back, utterly shocked, angrily complaining how "This isn't suitable for children!!!". No kidding, we weren't joking.

I'm sure it's very difficult for a parent to monitor every little thing a child absorbs, but uneven rating systems like PEGI only potentially make it harder.

Maybe a Thumbs parent could chime in?

Edited June 22, 2009 by ThunderPeel2001

[Patters]

I don't agree with any age rating system in particular, a lot of them will make many mistakes. My parents were moderately strict with age ratings, for my 9th birthday my dad took me to special reserve (damn I miss that shop) to get a game, they let people try before you buy on the consoles that they had, so chose a few games to play: Space station silicon valley, Magic Ninja, and a few others; I ended up preferring Space Station, Which was rated 11+ by elspa. So my dad asked the assistant, who was the one who recommended the game if there was anything that would be horrifying to a 9 year old, to which he replied no (which is completely true). So I was allowed the game and enjoyed it.

I have played games and watched films which I shouldn't have due to my age: Goldeneye at 11, MGS2 at 12/13, GTA:SA at 17, Predator 2 at 10, and others can't really remember. However maybe I am being hypocritical, but games such as Splinter Cell chaos theory deserve their 16+ pegi rating if not a higher one, you play as a guy who hides in shadows, then can grab people interrogate them then slit their throats, this is a small view of the game, but it is in there.

Also with the COD games, and similar games based in a real world environment, this deserves a higher rating with it being more realistic, opposed to Gears of War where the characters are clearly not particularly realistic in line with us, this isn't to say Gears doesn't deserve the 18 rating it received. I really hope this move will make the system more consistent than it is currently, which unfourtunately I highly doubt it will.

[OssK]

I think we can all agree that children shouldn't be exposed to EVERYTHING.

I would like to have this demonstrated to me please

"Manhunt is mostly for kids anyway, no one past the age of reason would play that game..." -IGN.Com

[elmuerte]

Why did you write this? It feels like an attempt to provoke an argument about something which doesn't exist. (Ie. troll.) Miffy clearly wasn't saying this, and this discussion isn't really about it, either.

From the last 3 words from miffy's post I clearly sensed some frustration about the conclusion of said story. And that's why I wrote in that post.

It's only half the story, maybe the dad returned the game after he checked it out at home. Just because he bought it for his young daughter doesn't mean the parenting stopped there. It's not like the average sales clerk as knowledge about the stuff they sell. I wouldn't be surprise if a clerk would say that Mass Effect contains pornographic material if you asked if there was nudity in the game. Just because he heard that on the "news" or internet.

That's why these ratings are so useful, now everybody can get a bit of an idea what they can expect, and don't have to trust the clerk on providing a rating. The clerk could answer which game is better.

[Wurtsi]

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

I played a shit-ton of Vice City when it first came out in 2002 (I was 11 years old at the time) and it did not affect me in any of the ways any of you described. I think that when most kids are exposed to gore or violence they take it very differently than adults. Adults can look at a game, compare it to reality and think it's completely disgusting and morally wrong, but in the end all a kid will think is "This is so COOL!" which it is. Most kids will understand the difference between game and reality, even more so than adults. In my opinion all the disclaimer on the box should say is "not for the mentally unstable" and maybe list some things in the game that might be offensive, scary or anything of the sort. Age restrictions in themselves are bullshit.

All people are different, people grow up at very different rates and people handle violent or sexual images in very different ways. You can't go around calling out "bad parenting" when someone buys COD4 for their child. Their child most possibly CAN in fact handle the stuff that is in the game and if they can't, well, then I doubt even the child will want to play that game ever again. Parents should know what their can and can't handle. I'm not saying every parent should buy violent games for their 8-year-olds, but if they do you can't just blindly judge them for it.