Full FeedEnforcing game ratings may be a waste of time
Do game ratings even matter if kids can get their paws on M-rated games either way? That’s what Cnet writer Don Reisinger contemplates in a recent editorial, and he concludes that the answer is a big fat “No.” Citing a recent survey that found that 17 percent of Grand Theft Auto IV buyers were under the minimum age, and that a full 80% of the underage buyers had no problem getting their parents to buy it for them, the ratings clearly aren’t doing their intended job.
I think the solution to the whole thing is adequately educating parents so they can (hopefully) make informed decisions about what their kids play. Sites like What They Play, which explains games and breaks down objectionable content in a parent-friendly format - are really the way to go.
Read [Cnet] Also Read [What They Play]
Keep up with the latest gaming goodness! - 
Subscribe to our feed
Important Importables
Jenni Lada brings us information about all of the groovy new gaming imports from around the world.
That’s essentially one of the things that I was pointing out when I wrote up a story about the ESRB. Ratings are only good if they’re followed but since parents don’t check things out before they buy the games, the ratings currently are ineffective and entirely unnecessary.
on August 16, 2008 at 03:02 PM - LINKA 15- or 16-year-old playing an M-rated game is just like a bunch of teens watching an R-rated movie, but should we throw these rating systems away because they don’t “work?” I think not; they do serve a purpose, and that is to let one know what to generally expect what is in the game and bar under-age persons from personally purchasing any game not age-suitable for them.
Jonathan, are you saying that when a parent buys a game rated M for his or her 13-year-old child that it was automatically a bad decision? Perhaps this 13-year-old understands that it’s only a game and is meant to entertain—not to influence in an improper manner or anything else. And perhaps the parent did in fact “check things out” before he or she purchased it for his or her child. And if a parent does not understand what the game content means (Blood, Violence, etc.), he or she can easily look it up on the ESRB’s website. It’s all there and is not hard to comprehend; blood is blood, violence is violence, and nudity is nudity. It’s either there or it isn’t. There really is no need to go into detail.
And here is a counter-statistic taken directly from ESRB’s website: According to a survey by Peter D. Hart Research Associates in March 2008, 86% of parents with children who play video games are aware of the rating system and 78% say they regularly check the rating before buying computer and video games for their children. Over half of parents are aware of content descriptors, which are found on the back of game packaging and indicate elements in a game that may have triggered a particular rating and/or may be of interest or concern.
The survey also found that 59% of parents say they “never” allow their kids to play M-rated games; an additional 35% say they “sometimes” allow their children to play M-rated games. Parents of children under the age of 13 are more than twice as likely as those with children 13 and older to “never” allow their children to play an M-rated game. When parents do allow their children to play M-rated games, they do so after checking the rating information, considering what’s in the game and making a judgment about whether it may be appropriate for their children.
Looks to me like the system is doing fairly well.
on August 19, 2008 at 10:36 AM - LINKYeah and there are also parents who make the unfortunate get “M” rated games for children younger than 13. Since you likened it to movies, when I went to see Freddy vs Jason while it was in the theaters about eight groups of parents had children as young as six in the audience with them. I ended up going back to observe the audience two more times and the group of children brought by parents got younger.
Also the ESRB rating system is based off of how offensive it can be. What is offensive to someone else and would warrant a “M” rating to that person, doesn’t necessary match up to another person’s personal view of what is offends him/her. This makes the ESRB inconsistent in rating as well.
on August 19, 2008 at 11:11 AM - LINK