Georgia to educate parents on game ratings

by Kyle Orland { Aug 16th 2006 at 12:25PM }

Problem: Children are getting their hands on violent video games.

Potential government solutions: You can propose unconstitutional laws preventing the games from being sold to minors. You can propose big-brother style federal oversight of a private, self-regulatory body. Or, if you're smart like the state of Georgia, you can work to educate the parents that make an overwhelming majority of game purchases.

Gamasutra is reporting that the ESRB has partnered with Georgia State Attorney General Thurbert Baker to create public service announcements explaining the game rating system to parents and reminding them to check the rating before making a purchase. The ads, which will appear on TV and radio, are bound to be more effective than the ESRB's annoying in-store video ads where Derek Jeter and Tiger Woods remind you that they are sports stars and you are not. Here's hoping this ushers in a new era of cooperation over combativeness between the industry and the government.

Tags: ESA, ESRB, government, regulation

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Chris @ Aug 16th 2006 12:29PM

"is your kid playing video games? Then they is 67% more likely to kill someone, FACT"

education at it's best.

JimmyHACK @ Aug 16th 2006 12:34PM

howabout just generally educating them first :)

Todd @ Aug 16th 2006 12:37PM

This is all fine and dandy, but how about also educating the source. If you were to replace "games" with "beer" then these stores would take a greater notice. As it stands a 10 year old can walk in and buy "Leisure Suit Larry" or "The Guy Game" without question.

Krak Monkey @ Aug 16th 2006 12:41PM

howabout just generally educating them first :)

Ga has a fine public education system... OK, i gotta stop i can't keep a stright face and say that!

tyetheczar @ Aug 16th 2006 12:42PM

woah...
It's about freaking time.
____________________________________________
Please click on this link to a great game music dl site.

OtakuCODE @ Aug 16th 2006 12:45PM

Alternate Solution: Tell the 'concerned' parents that they are afraid for nothing, videogames are just entertainment, and kids realize that. Ignore the ratings, and get your kid the games they want. Period.

Don't make life more complex than it has to be.

Jecrell @ Aug 16th 2006 12:46PM

*educational ad starts*

Let's see what The Waterboy's momma has to say.

"Dontchu remember what momma told you about video games? Video games are the devil" - Momma.

*educational ad ends*

Shiloh @ Aug 16th 2006 12:50PM

"As it stands a 10 year old can walk in and buy "Leisure Suit Larry" or "The Guy Game" without question."

Where does this happen? Has anyone honestly seen this happen in a EB Games or Gamestop? Usally if i see a 10 year old kid in my game store, when it comes time to make the purchase it's mom or dad, or some other family member that is of age that is coming up with the cash or credit card.

Are M rated games getting into the hands of kids, of course they are, but you can't tell me you've seen this happen where they are buying the games themselves??

I tend to belive this is a good first step that the ESRB and GA are taking, but until there is a fundamental change, and certain parents start being parents again, then this issue isn't going to be resolved.

Kristof @ Aug 16th 2006 12:59PM

It's funny how when a news article comes up about kids playing violent video games - Mature content - people go on and on how it's the ultimate responsibility of the parent and the parent should be regulating what a child plays not the government ... bla bla bla .... THEN, when something productive like the ESRB trying to educate *gasp* THE PARENT comes about, people go off on it either making fun of it or saying things like, "Ignore the ratings, and get your kid the games they want" ... God you people are stupid.

OtakuCODE @ Aug 16th 2006 1:00PM

Since everyone, even the gaming community, wants to agree to the idea that games can be harmful to kids... how about bringing forth examples? Where are the kids scarred and damaged by flickering pixels? Where are all the kids who can't function in society because of their mis-spent youth in front of a joystick?

Am I missing something when I see that videogames are making more money than the movie industry, are pervasive in the culture, and the only negative effect they can be documented to have in any capacity is on the amount of free time a typical parent has since they have to spend so much time wringing their hands over what games their kids are playing?

unimental @ Aug 16th 2006 1:02PM

I'd love to know more, but both of the links in the post leading outside of Joystiq are blocked here at work. Reason? "One or more categories denied helper='WebBlocker-Out' details='Games'"

But here I am happily enjoying my lunch-hour with Joystiq, which apparently does not have "Games" related content. Hmm.

So, my question to non-blocked readers is this: Does Georgia's proposed public service announcement program utilize public funds (i.e. taxpayer dollars) for this parental education program?

DocGonzo @ Aug 16th 2006 1:26PM

I still think the entire ratings system is flawed. Its a damn good idea, of course; just a bad case of 'you're doing it wrong'. I mean really. What are the chances that your child is going to have to deal with a grisly murder in their life someday? Now, what are the chances that they're going to have sex someday? How can a pixelated nipple and simulated sex scenes be so terribly awful that they overshadow, say, decapitation with chainsaw?

To put it quite simply, all the violence and bloodshed and all that crap, thats fantasy. Plain and simple, it is not likely to happen to you, or to anybody you know, anytime soon. And people know this; intellectually, they understand the concept of 'fiction' and 'make believe', which further supports the fact that it is a fantasy for entertainment. Even a ten year old can understand that. Sex, on the other hand, is a normal facet of everyday life for any teenager or adult; everybody does it, everybody enjoys it, everybody does it some more.

So why in the hell is it so widely believed that 'videogames make people killers'? Zero evidence of this. Logically it makes no sense. And yet the rating system in place says its perfectly fine for a 13 year old to murder people in their games. And yet a nipple is automatically unsafe for people below 18, despite the fact that EVERYBODY HAS THEM ALREADY. Look down your shirt, you've got nipples. Maybe they're even hard right now. Point is, it is not a big deal...but the ESRB seems to think it is.

The average age for losing one's virginity was about 14 years old in the US the last time I saw that statistic. Kinda makes you wonder, just what is the ESRB trying to protect us from?

As to Georgians being educated...ehhe. Snicker. Giggle, teehee, snort. Really now. Nobody ever wonders what all the signs in the store are for? what that little box with the letter in it is for? Do they even know what the hell they're buying? I suspect that a good majority of parents simply buy whatever's on their kids christmas lists to shut them up; if the kids were buying it themselves, with their own money, then for the kids to get it they would HAVE to have the conversation of 'hey mom can you buy this game for me I have the money' 'why can't you do it, son, I'm tryin to watch my soaps' 'the guy won't sell it to me' 'well why not? you got the money dontcha?' 'he says its got too much violence in it for a kid to play, can you get it for me so I can play?' 'if it'll shut you up, sure. now move your head, momma can't see the tee vee.'

Probot @ Aug 16th 2006 1:57PM

"Am I missing something when I see that videogames are making more money than the movie industry, are pervasive in the culture, and the only negative effect they can be documented to have in any capacity is on the amount of free time a typical parent has since they have to spend so much time wringing their hands over what games their kids are playing?"

You are missing a lot appearently. First, the game industry is not making more money than the movie industry. It has been said before, but it's a lie. You have to look at hardware sales, software sales, accessories, and online subscriptions and put all that up against just the US box office to get that video games are bigger than movies.

Second, how pervasive something is in a culture is subjective. They're a lot of places, and most people know of them, but it's not hard to find someone that has never played a video game.

And lastly, here's some other "negative effects" that you seem to have overlooked:

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

The ratings exist for parents. That's why they were made. Teaching parents how to use the rating system is a good thing. All the opposition I see to this idea is absurd.

n8dogg @ Aug 16th 2006 2:03PM

Alright you fuckers. It's not like Georgia is a state full of waterboys and rednecks. Just because we live in the South doesn't mean we're all uneducated and live in trailers.

I cannot fucking STAND it how all the northerners all think we're all inbred and marry our cousins. How about you actually come down here, and realize that our society is just like everyone else's. We have our share of nutjobs and idiots, but we also have normal, upstanding, REGULAR CITIZENS.

We have the lowest SAT scores, why? Because we're one of the few states that actually require everyone to take the SATs, regardless of whether or not they're going to collage.

Don't think just because we're Southerners that we don't know about that dag-gum edyuumacation. You fucking prejudiced bastards.

I for one am proud that the State of Georgia is taking the initiative to educate parents about games and the rating system. I work at a Gamestop (quitting by the end of this month) and have made it a personal goal to enforce the rating system.

Fuck. You. All.

Andy S. @ Aug 16th 2006 2:48PM

You know, it seems like Joystiq and Cartoon Network's Adult Swim have pretty much the same demographic.

So I wonder how many of the unenlightened douchebags here who jumped straight into making the easy-and-inaccurate "southerners are st00pid" joke realize that the vast majority of the programming on Adult Swim is produced in Atlanta, GA. Not Hollywood. Not New York. At. Lan. Ta.

jc @ Aug 16th 2006 2:48PM

Great job n8dogg. My views on Georgia have been completely reversed. Your elegant explanation proves that people in your state are humble and self-secure.

Hart704 @ Aug 16th 2006 2:49PM

Finally something looks to be happening that makes sense on this whole issue. Thompson take notes!

eric_with_a_k @ Aug 16th 2006 3:14PM

Good for you n8dogg. I, too, cannot stand the elitist and condescending attitudes many Americans fortunate enough to live on the two coasts have for our Mid-west and Southern neighbors. Living in California I hear this kind of talk all the time and it's not only disgusting, it's disingenuous...we have more then our share of the nation's idiots.

eric_with_a_k @ Aug 16th 2006 3:17PM

Myself included..."more THAN our share", not "more then". ;)

Saxon @ Aug 16th 2006 3:18PM

I live in Atlanta and work as a web developer for Georgia Tech. I can therefor vouch that at least one of us is educated.

I'm also pleased that we're trying to educate parents on game ratings at the expense of my tax dollar or not. And if I may throw some generalizations back at you, it's a hell of a lot more effective than wasting tax dollars on bills that immediately get shot down like some of your northern states.

OtakuCODE @ Aug 16th 2006 3:22PM

Probot: The studies cited by that guy are fundamentally flawed, and unnecessary to boot. If videogaming were a small pasttime with a few hundred people taking part, it would warrant study. As it is, tens of millions of people in the USA alone have played, and continue to play, videogames on a regular basis. Yes, you can find people who have not played videogames. Statistically, those people are irrelevant.

Yes, ratings are provided for parents. And like movie ratings, they are based upon nonscientific gut-feeling emotional drives that a few people have regarding the viewpoints of the culture in general. Those subjective and unproven opinions are then allowed to rule, censor, and dictate the type of content made available and to whom it is made available.

I do not have a problem with content labelling. I don't expect parents to be well-versed in every game that is released. I expect every parent to know their own child, and to be able to make the decisions upon seeing the content summary in their own childs best interest. Parent A may believe their kid is a fragile moron who can't differentiate red pixels from oxygen-bearing blood in a real living person, and they can then shelter and damage that kid for the rest of their life by doing so if they wish. Parent B, on the other hand, might realize their kid would be able to experience and enjoy much more of life if they learned to live in the real world rather than a cotton-candy fantasyland where no one has bad thoughts. The system as it is now limits Parent B in their choices, both in the fact that they have to buy the game for the kid rather than allowing the kid to get the game themselves (which would encourage independence, give the kid a sense of accomplishment and control over their own life and economy if they earned the cash themselves, etc), but also in that there are many companies out there who remove or omit content from their game to achieve a specific ESRB rating.

MrTroy @ Aug 16th 2006 3:25PM

"Alright you fuckers." - Your argument went right out of the window. I couldn't stop laughing after reading that cause I knew what the rest of the post was gonna be about.

DocGonzo - For the record, the entire time I was working at Gamestop I had to constantly explain the rating system regardless of the fact that we had huge signs saying what it was AND a videotape looping with the information on it. Parents MUST be educated. Granted lots of parents don't care. THe rules are made for people who do care. If the parents don't care to begin with, that kid has much bigger problems than a video game being too violent.

Probot @ Aug 16th 2006 3:43PM

"Probot: The studies cited by that guy are fundamentally flawed, and unnecessary to boot. If videogaming were a small pasttime with a few hundred people taking part, it would warrant study. As it is, tens of millions of people in the USA alone have played, and continue to play, videogames on a regular basis."

What exactly is flawed in the studies? And where is the source that counters this? My point is not that all research points in one direction, but that there is scientific evidence supporting the claim that video games affect behavior. We can't ignore that fact.

Also, I don't understand the logic that if something is done by only a few people, it should be studied. It makes more sense to me that if millions of people are doing something, that would warrant examination.

"Yes, ratings are provided for parents. And like movie ratings, they are based upon nonscientific gut-feeling emotional drives that a few people have regarding the viewpoints of the culture in general. Those subjective and unproven opinions are then allowed to rule, censor, and dictate the type of content made available and to whom it is made available."

Rating is different than censoring. Ratings label content and act as a guideline for a parent.

Ratings don't have to be based on science. They have to be based on observation and understanding context. The ESRB does that and for the most part, games don't try to straddle the edges of a rating. GTA is obviously Mature, Final Fantasy is obviously Teen, and Mario is obviously for Everyone.

And if a developer does try to reach for a specific rating, odds are it's for economic reasons, since E and T games actually sell better than M games most of the time.

As for your example, Parent A will not damage their kid if they don't let them play video games. And Parent B isn't limited in any way. If Parent B wants his kid to play an M rated game, then he can buy it himself and give it to the kid.

I don't know where you live, but buying video games has never been a treacherous journey for me, where the end brings "a feeling of accomplishment." You're turning a trip to Wal-Mart into the quest for the Holy Grail.

DaltonGA @ Aug 16th 2006 3:46PM

Uh, wait a minute. There are still ignorant people in the world holding onto this "Southerners R dum" thing?Maybe if you bothered to -educate- yourself on the matter, you might realize you're only proving yourself to be totally ignorant. :)

OtakuCODE @ Aug 16th 2006 4:01PM

Probot: He cites many studies on that page, and pointing out the problems with each one would take ages. Some of them only test the increased aggression levels immediately after the game is played and compare it against people who have been sitting still for an hour. Others claim that videos of violent acts are psychologically equivalent to actually witnessing violent events in person as part of their experiment, without bothering to prove it. I'm not just someone who reads about videogame studies and let's fly with an uninformed opinion, I've studies psychology, experimental psychology methodology and developmental neurobiology. When they come out with a study that shows differing development in the amigdula in people who play violent videogames or something of that nature, then we might be getting somewhere. Behaviorism is entirely inadequate to substantiate the types of claims they are making unless they do VERY large, VERY expensive, and VERY impractical studies that involve thousands of subjects and years of study.
There is no scientific evidence linking violent videogames to violent behavior. There are scientists linking violent videogames to violent behavior. Those are very different things.

The point I was trying to make by pointing out the amount of people involved was to say that if you have a few hundred people doing something, knowledge of the effects of that thing on the people is more likely to be unknown. As it is, everyone knows people who play videogames. Everyone knows, simply from anecdotal evidence, that playing videogames does not have an effect. They have to be tricked into believing that they do.

Rating is not different than censoring. Content labelling, with an absence of rating, would be different than censoring. As you point out, the E and T markets are lucrative. Likewise in the movie industry, the PG-13 market is lucrative. Because there are limitations on who can partake of entertainment rated for older audiences, studios, artists, and creators, design with this in mind. Rather than taking their idea and giving it expression in the truest way possible, they cut things out, dumb things down, and compromise it down to a certain rating. If you believe a work of art is malleable and meaningless and should be altered like hemming a pair of pants to suit the viewer, I guess this isn't a large concern of yours. But I'd prefer to experience what the creator intends, and for that opportunity to be available for my children.

Parent A *might* not damage their kid by not letting them play videogames. If the kid grows up on a farm and witnesses or partakes in animal slaughter, hunts, or is exposed to violent TV or movies, then the kid will still be quite able to understand that the world is a violent place, and that as human beings we reduce that violence and contain our violent urges for the good of ourselves as well as others. If they are completely sheltered from the concept of violence, however, disaster can be expected. No, I do not have any study to show this, take it or leave it. Sheltering does hurt children. Parents are supposed to raise them to be ADULTS, not simply larger children. And you can't gain experience by NOT experiencing things.

Where I live does not determine whether buying a $60 videogame is a signficant psychological event in a childs life. The fact that we live in a world where, as an adult, that child is going to have to get a job, acquire money, and learn to spend it wisely is the thing that makes this significant. A child that grows up being handed videogames is put in danger of obtaining an irrational expectation of being provided entertainment without earning it. A child that earns their games will understand the value and proper motivation of work - to trade your skills for things you want or need. I realize some in society want to downplay this moral, but I believe it to be one of the most important possible to impart to a child.

Ross Miller @ Aug 16th 2006 4:03PM

I'm a former ATLien myself (now residing in nearby Athens for college).

... what? Nothing to say, I just wanted to mention I'm from Georgia.

I just wanted to feel like I belong!

Saxon @ Aug 16th 2006 4:18PM

Ross, does that mean you attend UGA? Because then you really do fall into the "Hick from Georgia" category.

Joe @ Aug 16th 2006 4:55PM

I was in an EB Games in Jacksonville, Florida picking up Hot Shots Golf for my uncle. As I wait, a kid no more than 11 comes in, buys Grand Theft auto 3, and tells his mom to get it.

At checkout, the clerk says "Ma'am, that game is rated Mature for graphic violence, sexual themes and profanity." The woman says "I know, it's fine, ring it up."

I was appalled.

Matt @ Aug 16th 2006 5:29PM

There aren't any hicks at UGA anymore; it's now mostly spoiled rich kids from ATL and its Akira-like blob of "suburbs".

Exeter @ Aug 16th 2006 6:29PM

Goodness...hardly anybody's actually commenting on this item in more than a dismissive, "Let's get this out of the way so I can vent my spleen on [issue]," manner. It's encouraging to see that both the ESRB and a state government are being expedient with their resources instead of wasting taxpayer's dollars on programs that, even if they could possibly be effective in some parallel dimension, almost instantly are struck down by legal minds that use their minds. This, I think, is a development that will be watched by other states. Hope it works.