GamePro Family attempts ESRB v2.0

by Alexander Sliwinski { Dec 2nd 2006 at 12:30PM }

GamePro Family birthed on the interwebs recently and is GamePro's second attempt at getting parents informed about the types of games their kids play or want them to buy. GamePro launched a magazine in the early '90s for parents called PlayRight -- it failed. A PlayRight column survived in GamePro magazine until 2004. GamePro Family seems to be another incarnation of PlayRight, with GamePro management, once again, trying to do the right thing and teach parents about gaming.

The problem is that the ESRB is already there to do "the right thing." Would the GamePro management please wake-up and put some money and effort into their flagship publication? Maybe management thinks this is some kind of PR/marketing effort and if parents go to GamePro Family, instead of the ESRB's website which has a full blown ad campaign backing it, that parents will want to subscribe to GamePro for their children? That idea sounds utterly convoluted, but why else do this PR based website in the era of the ESRB?

[Via GameSetWatch]

Tags: gamepro, gamepro family, GameproFamily, magazine, subscription

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Meh @ Dec 2nd 2006 12:55PM

I think it's actually quite a good website. Gives varying views and doesn't seem OTT against games. Good info for parents who do want to watch over.

Rob @ Dec 2nd 2006 1:16PM

There's a problem with this, since it doesn't address the real problem.

Anyone that needs this won't be visiting the web site. Anyone that already understands the ratings doesn't need to visit the website.

DiRT @ Dec 2nd 2006 1:36PM

You've missed the whole point! The ESRB isn't doing a good job which is why Gamepro is doing this. If the ESRB was doing a better job, you wouldn't have as many politicians making a big deal about games all the time.

Sad, sad Joystiq. Why do you hate the idea of kids not being alble to play games rated "not for kids"?

Rob @ Dec 2nd 2006 1:50PM

DiRT - Why do you hate America? cf Constitution.

beaker @ Dec 2nd 2006 1:53PM

It's a great idea. Too bad that GamerDad got there first and is doing an OUTSTANDING job with it. I go to Gamerdad to find out which kid's games don't suck (for my 9-year-old son.) GamerDad has never steered me wrong and they [GamerDad] don't moralize.

Ignatius @ Dec 2nd 2006 1:58PM

Why do people keep picking on the ESRB? It's funded by the game companies! They try and regulate themselves, but it shouldn't become a political or legal issue over the rating system and it shouldn't be picked apart by stupid magazines.

llamapalooza87 @ Dec 2nd 2006 2:14PM

This site fails the Acid Test of anti-violent games advertisement. Go to the "Mom's take on Video Games, period." story.

Fifth Paragraph:
"and, in fact, the more victims who remain dead on the ground, the more points you earn."

[price is right "loss" sound]

In my book, here's a surefire way to know if a site like this is for intelligent information or for mindless scare campaigns and convincing stupid people games are evil:
Almost every site in the latter category will imply that you get points for racking up more victims. Most games haven't used points in YEARS. Ergo, any site which says that has no clue what its talking about.

Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo @ Dec 2nd 2006 2:23PM

I personally think this is a great idea.

The ESRB stamps a rating on a product. Other than a few brief descriptors, it really doesn't tell parents too much about a game. Their Website is poorly laid out and not very user friendly.

Independent sites that go into greater depth about whether games are suitable for your child or not are a great value to parents. There are many who scream that parents should be the ones who determine whether their children should be allowed to play a game or not. Ironically these are often the very same people that decry sites such as GameProFamily.

There is a VAST difference in the amount of detail that these sites provide above and beyond the ESRB.
Compare for God of War:
ESRB
God of War SCEA M Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Nudity, Sexual Themes, Strong Language Playstation 2

GameProFamily
http://www.gameprofamily.com/product/?global_id=107880

GamerDad
http://www.gamerdad.com/detail.cfm?itemID=2332

Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo @ Dec 2nd 2006 2:36PM

@7 - "Almost every site in the latter category will imply that you get points for racking up more victims. Most games haven't used points in YEARS. Ergo, any site which says that has no clue what its talking about."

Points, no. Most games do not use "points" now a days. What many do, though, IS reward you for body count. How many shooter style games have an after level score system to keep track of your body count, how accurate your shooting was, how many head shots you made, etc. Some games even unlock bonus content depending on how effective a killing machine you were.

Now I'm not opposed to over the top violence in video games. I love Doom 3 and think Gears of War is one of the most incredible looking console games ever. I'm also 30 years old.

Such games have no place in the hands of children. I'm just as opposed to it as I'd be opposed to porn being in the hands of children. Any site that makes it easier for parents to get the down-low on what really is in a game gets thumbs up from me.

Comstock @ Dec 2nd 2006 3:40PM

I gotta agree with the comments suggesting that the ESRB is not doing enough. It is a simple fact that the ESRB ratings give a brief overview of content. It makes sense that parents would want to know more. Game content can be discussed in a straight-forward, non-judgmental way.

Rob, parents making decisions about what games their children play has nothing to do with the Constitution. In fact, sensible, private sources of information (like GamePro Family or GamerDad) are exactly what we need to stop politicians from suggesting the government impose oppressive and often un-constitutional regulations. These sites and magazines are good for everybody when they are put together by knowledgeable people.

the kenster @ Dec 2nd 2006 5:20PM

let the kids play what they want. see how that goes.

Ignatius @ Dec 2nd 2006 5:37PM

"Such games have no place in the hands of children. I'm just as opposed to it as I'd be opposed to porn being in the hands of children. Any site that makes it easier for parents to get the down-low on what really is in a game gets thumbs up from me."

To whomever said this; how does porn hurt your kids? They're gonna learn it anyway, might as well not keep them as ignorant as the US government wants it to be. (rofl, abstinence training...)

Comstock @ Dec 2nd 2006 7:19PM

Ignatius said:how does porn hurt your kids? They're gonna learn it anyway, might as well not keep them as ignorant
I suspect not everyone posting in this thread has kids or has given the raising of children a lot of serious thought.

Dan @ Dec 2nd 2006 7:09PM

While this might be a good idea in theory, the site itself looks pretty bad. Take this 'Dad's take' segment from Twilight Princess:

"This classic video game series has been a Nintendo stand out ever since they introduced video games systems in the early '80' s. A new version shows up every year. It's an almost Arthurian tale set in a medieval-style fantasy world were a young kid rises up from peasant to hero. The graphics look like cartoon animation. Unless you have something against sword fighting versus goblin creatures, this game is excellent. Think Lord of the Rings but less scary-looking."

Eh? I'm wondering if whoever wrote that even saw screenshots of Twilight Princess, or if they just assumed that since the last couple Zelda games were 'cartoony' looking, TP must be too.

Rob @ Dec 2nd 2006 8:04PM

Comstock - Right, it has nothing to do with parents buying /not buying games for their kids. And other sources of information are good (although I don't see the point of this one, the way it's marketed).

DiRT's implication is that it should be regulated, which I am firmly against. It is not the government's responsiblity for raising your kids.

Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo @ Dec 2nd 2006 9:53PM

I hate to take this so off topic, but this needs to be addressed:

@12 - I'm the individual that made the comment that porn should be kept out of the hands of children.

Your comment of "how does porn hurt your kids" clearly shows one of two things: 1) You are quite immature and are just trying to be inflammatory or 2) You don't have kids and/or don't know one thing about child development.

I'm a medical doctor, and while I'm not a pediatrician, I took special interest in pediatrics during my training. I've personally witnessed the developmental and social changes that children experience when exposed to pornography at an early age, including grossly inappropriate behavior for one's age (eg 4 year olds attempting to perform sexual acts on others).

In children that have been exposed to pornography at an early age, rates of early teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are dramatically increased. Herpes is lifelong, and AIDS will kill you. So yes, porn DOES hurt one's children.

I truly hope that you were simply trying to be inflammatory by making such a woefully uninformed and callous comment.

otakucode @ Dec 3rd 2006 10:04AM

The ESRB does not simply seek to inform parents of game content. They do do this, yes, with their content labelling on the games, and it's an admirable effort. However, they don't stop there. For them, it is not enough to simply say 'this game includes smoking' or 'this game includes graphic violence'. They go further. They tell parents at what age their children and adolescents (not the same thing) will be developed enough to handle the content. That is a big step, and one they should absolutely not be respected in taking. They seek to be not 'protectors of children' but arbiters of social values.

I went to a Dave and Busters last night for the first time. It was fantastically great. There were kids all over the place, playing House of the Dead 4, Time Crisis 3 and 4, and loads of other ultraviolent titles. They were having fun, and their parents were there with them. Those parents know their kids. The ESRB does not. Those kids were fine and will, arguably, be better able to deal with simulated and FICTIONAL violence than the kids living in a bubble 'protected' by the ESRB.

Joey Jo Jo Mynameistoolong: There's a good possibility that when Comstock said 'kids' he meant 'adolescents'. The definition of 'children' and 'kids' is extremely flexible and has to be pinned down before you start into a discussion. I think it would be impossible to build a case claiming that any kid in puberty could be harmed by sexual content beyond things stemming from a lack of education brought about by lack of exposure to thoughtful, educational sexual content. You'd have to argue that billions of years of evolution built puberty into our genes as a trap, giving us the ability and desire for sex before it gave us the psychological equipment to deal with it without it destroying us.