Parental responsibility? Pfft.
Friday, March 28th, 2008The British media gave a lot of time yesterday to a newly published report on the regulation of computer games, the main recommendation of which was to reform the ratings system… again.
Up until 2003 games in Britain (and in Ireland as a result) were given a rating by ELSPA, which is an association of software publishers (it’s in the name!). From April 2003 this was replaced by PEGI, a pan-European rating system (again, it’s in the name) which included age ratings and largely self-explanatory symbols to describe the game’s content.
Neither of these systems had or have any basis in British or Irish law and are merely recommendations - that said the law could be changed to make them enforceable and most big outlets treat them as law anyway (to avoid any bad press, basically). In certain cases games are also rated by the BBFC in Britain and IFCO in Ireland - although this only seems to be the more realistic or gruesome of releases.
This new report, which will probably gain some traction in Ireland too, suggests the introduction of a rating system in gaming that mirrors the one in the movie world - U, PG, 12, 15, 18 etc. etc. This system would be legally enforceable and shops found to be selling games to those under age would be fined heavily.
These recommendations aren’t bad per se - although I don’t see why the report didn’t just recommend making PEGI legally enforceable as the Finish and Austrians have. My problem is with the coverage, which at no point suggested that parental control is the key and that ratings mean nothing without it.
In fact, what I saw was the complete opposite with almost a tone of encouragement to parents who abdicated their responsibility. When the ITV News covered the topic yesterday, for example, they showed two young boys - no more than 12 - playing Resident Evil 4 on the Nintendo Wii, a game rated 15s by the BBFC (a rating which is legally enforceable). The shot then cut to their parents who were suggesting that the new recommendations would be pointless and the only way to solve the problem would be to ban violent games outright.
At no point was this logic questioned on-screen and so the mother sat there suggesting mass censorship for the good of her offspring despite the fact that she was happily letting them play a fairly gruesome game. It was bad enough that she said it with a straight face - it was worse that at no point the package did the suggestion of parental responsibility come up.
“I want parents to be empowered,” says Dr. Tanya Byron, who wrote up the report. Well they already are - it’s just that many fail to take advantage of that. This suggestion that parents lack empowerment because it’s so hard to find out what a game is all about is such hogwash - just as it was when those idiot parents complained about the film Bad Santa, which they just assumed was a family movie because it had the word ‘Santa’ in the title.
It all reminded me of my time working in a game retailer while I was in college, a job that made me realise how common this mother’s attitude is. On one occasion that will forever stick in my mind, I was serving customers around the time of the release of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. A kid came up to buy it and, as it was rated 18s, I refused him. He came back a minute later with his mother and she asked me what the game was like and if it really was “that bad”.
It was of no benefit to me to lie and pretend it wasn’t violent so I told her - as the name suggests it involved the hijacking of cars, there’s a lot of shooting and killing, you have to commit a multitude of crimes to progress in the game, there are prostitutes you can have sex with and as a result it’s 18s for a very good reason.
When I was finished listing off the things that made the game so appealing and so controversial all at once, she looked to her child and said; “OK - but you can only play it for an hour a day,” and proceeded to pay for it. She was over 18 (she was actually in her 40s I’d say) so I couldn’t refuse her but I got the sincere feeling that this is the kind of woman that would go onto national TV or Radio (Joe Duffy, preferably) and rail against how violent these video games were, and probably suggest that it was the game maker’s fault, or the Government’s fault, or the retailer’s fault for her kid saying “fuck” an awful lot more lately.
Just to be clear on this, I have no problem with violent video games. In fact, I’m playing Resident Evil 4 now and I love it - but from playing it I can see why it’s 15s (at times I think it feels more 18s even) and my mind is fully formed enough to be able to differentiate between fact and fiction. With that said, if a parent decides their under-age kid is able to handle a violent game, so be it - once their willing to take that responsibility and not try to pass the buck as if it’s not their job to parent.
One constant counter-argument is that of peer pressure and kid pressure and from my previous experience I can see just how much there is on parents to give their kids what they want - not least because “all their friends are playing it”. But my reaction to this is simple enough, and perhaps easier to form as I don’t have any children. Grow up and grow a pair.
If your kid came home and told you his friend had a hardcore porn video and he wanted one too, would you rush out and get it or tell him to shut up? It’s an extreme example but the principle’s the same. If you can’t say no to your child for his or her own good then the violence they’re exposed to through a computer is going to be the least of your worries.
These games aren’t for kids, it’s the parents’ job to keep their kids safe and so it’s the parents’ job to keep things that aren’t for them away from them. That seems logical enough to me - but then again maybe I’m missing the point that more games you buy for your child the less actual parenting time that’s required.
Blogs elsewhere
March 29th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
“although I don’t see why the report didn’t just recommend making PEGI legally enforceable as the Finish and Austrians have.”
The BBFC’s (and the IFC’s) rating logos are far better, they are more simplified, clearer and based on the ‘traffic light’ system.
Possibly more importantly, the report sees the BBFC rating more games, as gamesindustry.biz said: “Byron recommended that the statutory rating age be reduced to 12, with the BBFC taking responsibility for all titles rated ‘12′, ‘15′ and ‘18′”.
So, if they are to rate games at least from 12 to 18 they’d be using their logo and it would be confusing having a different logo on the remainder.
ELSPA’s former system was useless as logo and symbols go, you at least had to have a second look before you knew what age it was for. And I’m nearly sure remembering seeing a report saying parents thought it was just a recommendation of how hard the game was.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
The BBFC’s (and the IFC’s) rating logos are far better, they are more simplified, clearer and based on the ‘traffic light’ system.
I don’t see how - all age rating systems are centred around a number which defines the suitable minimum age. The colours and shapes make the rating slightly easier to identify at a glance but that split second difference isn’t enough to convince me that their better, or far better.
So, if they are to rate games at least from 12 to 18 they’d be using their logo and it would be confusing having a different logo on the remainder.
But that’s what the system recommends - having PEGI ratings only for some games and BBFC ratings for others.
If PEGI was made the legal age rating system for all games there’d be no need for the BBFC to get involved at any point - let them stick to rating films.
ELSPA’s former system was useless as logo and symbols go, you at least had to have a second look before you knew what age it was for. And I’m nearly sure remembering seeing a report saying parents thought it was just a recommendation of how hard the game was.
The ELSPA stickers weren’t great but any misconception about them comes down to simple information dissemination - that could have been fixed very easily regardless the design on the stickers.
Besides, ignorance isn’t an excuse and people shouldn’t be promoting or relying on any age rating system as the holy grail of child protection.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Adam, you know it as well as I do.
Parents take very little responsibility for what games their children are playing.
Far less than they would a film, or even a magazine.
It’s incredible, I wonder how many kids will get the new GTA just by asking their parents to buy it for them?
The ratings system counts for nothing unless parents are prepared to take an active interest in the games their kids are playing in the same way that they would the movies they’re watching, the other kids they play with, the places they play in etc.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:51 pm
This is true cw - and it’s a most confusing situation because games tend to be the greatest source of fear for parents, or at least the one their most vocal about.
Surely if you’re afraid of the influence games are having on your children the most logical thing to do is to research and test them for yourself just like you would if you got the impression that a certain film would be too ‘adult’ for them.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:30 pm
The idea of testing games is not practical on so many levels (unable to play/not use to games, can’t invest the time games need etc). Remember the rating people are given cheats, videos, to swiftly allow them to view what the game is like.
And I don’t think that too many people look over many films, most would trust the ratings or get their info else where.
Going back to having the same logos as film - this enforces a link that the ratings mean the same thing as the long standing (although slightly updated) film ratings.
It won’t be a case of “PEGI ratings only for some games”… Byron suggest that PEGI will still handle what she says will come to around 50 percent of games, but all games will use the BBFC logos.
The closest thing I can give you to proof that the traffic light system of labelling is far better of an improvement is to say look at food labelling and look at how retailers and others in that industry are running a screaming away from them.
“BBFC to get involved at any point - let them stick to rating films”… really that’s nonsense, it makes it sounds like they have never rated a game before, while in reality they have a track record spanning far further back then PEGI.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:21 am
The idea of testing games is not practical on so many levels (unable to play/not use to games, can’t invest the time games need etc). Remember the rating people are given cheats, videos, to swiftly allow them to view what the game is like.
Firstly, learning about a game doesn’t have to involve playing it - it just takes a little bit of research like googling the name.
And for those that do decide to give it a quick play - those “able” to - don’t need to finish the game to know what it’s about; you can figure the tone of a game within minutes of starting it just like you can a TV show, film or album.
And I don’t think that too many people look over many films, most would trust the ratings or get their info else where.
And many others don’t even pay attention to the age rating - as I’ve seen first hand myself - but my overall point is that you can’t rely on the state or a quango to parent your child and even a well designed age-rating system can only tell you so much.
There’s no excuse for not doing a bit of research.
Going back to having the same logos as film - this enforces a link that the ratings mean the same thing as the long standing (although slightly updated) film ratings.
The number is all that matters but frankly I don’t care what rating you put on a game - it doesn’t matter and it’s not even part of the solution. It all comes down to parental responsibility and my point is that this report and the coverage surrounding it made absolutely no attempt to suggest that it’s the parent’s job to parent, not a semi-state body’s.
It won’t be a case of “PEGI ratings only for some games”… Byron suggest that PEGI will still handle what she says will come to around 50 percent of games, but all games will use the BBFC logos.
Byron recommends that games are referred to the BBFC when they’re 12+, this means that games under this age will not need a BBFC rating and will have a PEGI rating instead. As such you’re still going to have two rating systems on game releases. Hardly making things easier for parents.
The closest thing I can give you to proof that the traffic light system of labelling is far better of an improvement is to say look at food labelling and look at how retailers and others in that industry are running a screaming away from them.
There’s no comparison between food content and the age rating of a game - the former is detailed, complex and nuanced while the latter is a single number. Most people need to have information on food made more understandable as there’s so much to take in with every single item; colour coding is a part of that.
If you can’t understand what ‘18′ means then it being red isn’t going to make it any easier for you.
“BBFC to get involved at any point - let them stick to rating films”… really that’s nonsense, it makes it sounds like they have never rated a game before, while in reality they have a track record spanning far further back then PEGI.
That’s not what I’m saying - what I’m saying is that they’re an organisation established to rate films and are being expected to rate a completely different medium. I wouldn’t expect the BBFC or IFCO to start putting age ratings on music or books so why games? Why not have a dedicated body, or re-establish the existing one with different disciplines within it?
April 4th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
It is not possible to comprehensively screen a game “within minutes of starting it” (personally I’ve seen some twisted games that started out pretty normal). There’s no way the IFCO or BBFC would ever do such a thing, so I can’t see why a responsible parent would. That and doing Google research isn’t practical for many game buying parents or other.
Adam, in no way would I deny that many don’t even pay attention to the age rating and store staff warnings. In fact, I’ve written about exactly that, on such I did a good bit of footwork and talked to managers and other staff across the city about it. At the end of the day – as it stands - it’s down to parents, and many aren’t responsible in far more important areas.
“…report and the coverage surrounding it made absolutely no attempt to suggest that it’s the parent’s job to parent”
Sorry, but it sounds like you have not read the Byron Review. Just a quick look and I found these extracts from the Executive Summary… “we need to improve on the systems already in place *to help parents* restrict children’s access to games which are not suitable for their age.”
And also: “When it comes to content, parents want better information on which to base their decisions – but importantly, they do see it as their role because only they can take into account the characteristics of their children and the context in which they play. This is reinforced in the research evidence, where context and what the child brings to the gaming experience is key to understanding potential risks and harms.”
On the actual logos: It’s nonsense to say the design of them doesn’t matter. Design is massively important in presenting information. Just because you and I understand something does not mean everybody does, making a the link with the film rating is valuable because it links with something outside games… this in turn has a better challenging the ‘it’s just a game’ attitude.
I’m afraid you’re wrong the point of two different logos too. While Byron says PEGI should handle games under 12+, she actually recommends that only one logo – the BBFC logo – should be used.
My comparison is quite simple: (1) the food industry industries refuses to use the recommended (but non-mandatory) traffic light system, (2) PEGI uses dull logos and dismiss the clear traffic light system used with films. While the food labels may not be as simple as just one figure, anybody can still make out what percentage of their RDA of, for example, salt each product has in it.
Re BBFC & IFCO and games: They might organisation set up for film but they have had do develop both when dealing with film and when they started with games many years ago. There’s lots of overlap with films and games… from doing research into what parent or society deems is or isn’t suitable, to the process or rating, to the labelling the works. The BBFC defend them selves in the following links…
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/BBFC-We-are-ready
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/bbfc–resource-claims-are–nonsense-
April 4th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
It is not possible to comprehensively screen a game “within minutes of starting it” (personally I’ve seen some twisted games that started out pretty normal). There’s no way the IFCO or BBFC would ever do such a thing, so I can’t see why a responsible parent would.
The vast majority of games are easy to gauge from the opening few minutes. I’d even wager that the tone of most games is obvious from the box art - bar perhaps those that are designed to deceive like Conker.
Why a responsible parent would not spend a few minutes playing a game they’re prepared to give to their child is beyond me - ideally they would play it all the way through but I don’t think that’s necessary.
That and doing Google research isn’t practical for many game buying parents or other.
I find that an absurd notion - doing research on a game, via google or any other means, is extremely simple and practical. It doesn’t even have to be done online.
Even reading the synopsis on the box art would be a good step forward; I don’t see how doing something like that - or picking up a magazine - is impractical.
Sorry, but it sounds like you have not read the Byron Review. Just a quick look and I found these extracts from the Executive Summary… “we need to improve on the systems already in place *to help parents* restrict children’s access to games which are not suitable for their age.”
And also: “When it comes to content, parents want better information on which to base their decisions – but importantly, they do see it as their role because only they can take into account the characteristics of their children and the context in which they play. This is reinforced in the research evidence, where context and what the child brings to the gaming experience is key to understanding potential risks and harms.”
I’ll withdraw my suggestion that the report didn’t cover parental responsibility however the main point of my original piece was the coverage of the report, and I still stand by that.
On the actual logos: It’s nonsense to say the design of them doesn’t matter. Design is massively important in presenting information. Just because you and I understand something does not mean everybody does, making a the link with the film rating is valuable because it links with something outside games… this in turn has a better challenging the ‘it’s just a game’ attitude.
Design is important in presenting complex information such as the nutritional content of a piece of food - it’s not nearly as important in presenting a number.
I think it’s a poor justification to overhaul the existing system just because it doesn’t look like the one used on another medium; people should be intelligent enough to realise what an age rating is whatever colour it is.
I’m afraid you’re wrong the point of two different logos too. While Byron says PEGI should handle games under 12+, she actually recommends that only one logo – the BBFC logo – should be used.
So she recommends having PEGI rate a game with the BBFC’s stamp? That seems odd to me.
My comparison is quite simple: (1) the food industry industries refuses to use the recommended (but non-mandatory) traffic light system, (2) PEGI uses dull logos and dismiss the clear traffic light system used with films. While the food labels may not be as simple as just one figure, anybody can still make out what percentage of their RDA of, for example, salt each product has in it.
So you’re saying that on a relatively complex information box that does not use the traffic-light system people can still identify the amount of Salt in their product? So why can’t they identify the message of a far simpler information box that also steers clear of the traffic light system?
There’s lots of overlap with films and games… from doing research into what parent or society deems is or isn’t suitable, to the process or rating, to the labelling the works.
I don’t really understand your examples but there’s an undeniable overlap between games and film - I don’t think it’s one large enough to warrant them being judged under the same guidelines, though.
How come IFCO and the BBFC aren’t asked to rate television programmes, for example, which would bear far more comparison to film than games?
April 5th, 2008 at 1:15 am
“people should be intelligent enough to realise what an age rating is whatever colour it is”
Should is the key word there.
“Why a responsible parent would not spend a few minutes playing a game they’re prepared to give to their child is beyond me”
Are you possibly presuming every parent are able to play games?
To a far, far lesser extent I’d say the same thing about using Google.
“So she recommends having PEGI rate a game with the BBFC’s stamp? That seems odd to me.”
Yes, and no it’s not odd, but only because it’s an improvement on the current system with two different age logos.
“How come IFCO and the BBFC aren’t asked to rate television programmes, for example, which would bear far more comparison to film than games?”
While RTE have their own strange ratings, generally TV programmes aren’t age-rated. Watersheds (as well as cutting) are used.
April 5th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Should is the key word there.
Yes and it all goes back to the parent’s personal responsibility to monitor their child’s media consumption as much as possible. The State should not be expected to legislate for parents too lazy or ignorant to parent for themselves.
Are you possibly presuming every parent are able to play games?
To a far, far lesser extent I’d say the same thing about using Google.
I’d find it patronising if someone said that any parent was incapable of playing games or using google - I’d equally find it defeatist of any parent who says they’re incapable of doing these things.
There’s nothing about games that makes someone over 40 allergic to them - they may just be a little less accessible as it’s a technology they’re not used to or very familiar with.
There are countless ways for parents to acquaint themselves with a technology and it’s the least they can do if it’s a technology their child uses regularly. Ignorance isn’t an excuse.
Failing that, there’s most certainly no excuse for picking up a games magazine which you can find in any newsagent or supermarket.
Yes, and no it’s not odd, but only because it’s an improvement on the current system with two different age logos.
I find it odd that the BBFC would be willing to outsource its role like that; surely they’d want to have done the leg-work if it’s their reputation being used on the pack?
While RTE have their own strange ratings, generally TV programmes aren’t age-rated. Watersheds (as well as cutting) are used.
TV programming is regulated and there are very strict guidelines about what can and cannot be shown at certain times of the day and what can and cannot be marketed at various age groups - arguably TV content regulation is stricter than film regulation.
But IFCO have absolutely no role or say in what is and isn’t acceptable for various TV audiences. Why would they be used to rate a medium that is vaguely similar to film when they aren’t used to rate one that is completely indistinguishable in terms of its mode of delivery and interaction?