April 22, 2008
Everyone who follows the video game scene knows that the controversial Grand Theft Auto series is rated M, for players 17 and older. So how do kids get their hands on GTA?With Grand Theft Auto IV launching in one week, it's a timely question. Critics often charge that the video game industry doesn't enforce its own rating system at point of sale.
But MTV Multiplayer's Tracey John has interviewed three under-17 gamers who played GTA. In two cases, the parents purchased the controversial game for the young men with full knowledge of its rating and content. The third teen acquired GTA San Andreas via an unspecified game trading website. That gamer, a 15-year-old Maryland resident named Sean, said:
[My parents] would probably be more upset that I didn’t listen to them first, and about the content second. In my defense, I feel that going to high school has prepared me for the content in M-rated games.
Eric, a 17-year-old from Ontario told MTV:
It was the same process as buying any other game. I’d just get it — the rating never worried or bothered my parents ’cause I guess [they thought] I could always distinguish the difference between the whack stuff in the games and reality.
Comments
There is also going to be problems with every other form of media, everyone who reads books knows that books are probably one of the most adult forms of entertainment you can get, and there is nothing stopping a kid with a library card from taking books out and reading them. I cannot see how this game is worse than the stuff they have on the local news either (and remember people, kids are supposed to watch the news because its educational).
"This is one of the dumbest articles ever, as no one disputes that kids can and do get these games by other means."
Mr. Thompson, i'm sorry, but there are not people in trench coats outside of Wal-Marts handing kids pirated copies of GTA. Get your face out of the crime novels.
BUZZZ--AP!!!!
High School is much worse then any M-rated game.
this
As "morally superior" as some folks feel, the above will always remain true.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Can't disagree. I'd say my mother brought me up pretty damn well, even though she let me play doom (a game rated 15 here in the UK) when I was 5, 10 years below the rating. I also played Duke Nukem 3D (an 18 rated game) at a very young age too.
The other parents in the videogame department looked at me like I was from Mars, and of course my son was mortified. However, he did play the game and he enjoyed it (I can't drive for shit in videogames so it wasn't much fun for me) and it was clear that he knew the difference between videogames and reality.
Similarly, I wouldn't take my son to every R-rated movie, but there were certainly some R-rated movies that were clearly no problem. But parents have to take an interest and educate themselves before they can make informed decisions.
----
Papa Midnight
But then you get that one idiot who thought GTA heists would work in real life, and everything goes to hell.
As “morally superior” as some folks feel, the above will always remain true."
Quoted for emphasis. Actually I've seen as much superior moralizing on these forums as I've seen anywhere. Apparently even many gamers see themselves as the ultimate judges of what my daughter should be allowed to play. The fact is, I'm perfectly within my rights both legally and morally to let her play Mature rated games at age 5 if I think she's old enough to handle the game. It's MY responsibility and if anyone else has an opinion on the issue they can be assured that I don't care and that I'll bring up my daughter as I see fit based on my own understanding of her abilities and level of maturity - things which I know far better than anyone else.
As for what a bad parent is, well a good parent is one who brings his children up based on his experience and his considered view of what he thinks is right for them. A bad parent is one who brings his children up based on the opinions of people who have never seen his child and based on no consideration of the child's maturity or ability. In my view it's a bad parent indeed who uses tools like an ESRB rating system to raise a child instead of actually taking the time to do his job as a parent.
So in your view, anyone that uses the ESRB ratings as a first cut guide for whether or not a game is suitable for their children is a bad parent?
While all the 'do-gooders' worry about the ills of Video games, there's a whole culture out there of REAL violence, REAL drug dealing, and even more in the streets - yet, they don't seem too concerned with it.
...of course then parents would probably pee their pants, but I think it would make a nice counter-weight to this discussion.
What I'm trying to get at is if a kid wants something a kid will get something. Period. Good parenting is simply giving your kids the skill of good judgement. Even IF you made a penalty for aquiring games ahead of the ESRB rating it would be just as "effective" as prohibition was...
...or as effective as the lack of an R18 rating is in Australia as well.
Still rooting for all the Aussies here to get that!
I can't agree with this statement because if you go to the parents of a child that has been caught breaking the law in any way, the majority of the parents are going to say "this is unlike him/her" or "my child would never do such a thing"
Another example of this is parents of a child that commits suicide, most parent don't even know that their children harbored thoughts of ending their own life.
Another good example is children who have problems in school because of bullies and teasing which can be synonymous with the previous example.
Hear no evil, see no evil. If everything appears to be ok then everything must be ok but we all know that appearances can be deceiving.
Now, to me, age is irrelevant as I have interacted with people of all different ages and of these individuals, their age does not reflect their maturity levels. I have seen 13 year old kids that act more mature than some 20 some year olds. In fact, I would trust the 13 year old more than some of the 20+ years olds.
There is no doubt in my mind what so ever that a portion of teenagers would have no problem distinguishing the line between reality and virtual reality. There is also no doubt in my mind that many people labeled "adults" by age lack this ability for many reasons. I think that everyone should have to qualify for many liberties that are available to us. The top five liberties being a drivers license, guns, voting license, alcohol, and mature media (games, movies, music, etc.)
I wish people would get it through their heads that the shotgun approach is a dumb way to solve such issues and implement a system that would monitor everyone at an individual level.
Just look at the army. Everyone has to undergo a medical eval every so often. If a soldier has developed mental issue that could lead to a need to kill others, the soldier is put on section 8 and is then rehabilitated and monitored.
Now, look at recent events where people with mental issues were not monitored. They bought guns legally and went out and killed people. This is not just for kids, it's also for adults.
Let's face it, the majority of the human population on this planet are unable to police themselves on every aspect of their lives. Yes, it does sound a bit "big brother'-ish to implement an individual monitoring system to distinguish who can and can't do certain things but I would feel 100 times better knowing that an individual doesn't have the ability to easily obtain a device that they are too immature and irresponsible to handle.
Seriously, who would you rather have behind the wheel of a car: a 35 year old who blasts music as loud as the stereo will go with one hand on the wheel and the other holding a cellphone up against his ear while doing 15 over the speed limit or a 15 year old who is going the speed limit and is using a headset with his cellphone?
My 15 year old sibling happens to be the example I used and he has shown my responsibility and maturity than the majority of people I have seen driving on our highways.
This all goes back to the old saying "don't judge a book by its cover" except, in this case, "don't judge an individual by their age"
To my mind, saying that school "prepares" anyone for the content of an M-rated game (especially those grounded in relevant modern-day settings) is analogous to saying that those same games can "prepare" a challenged youth to become a school shooter. I'm okay with the declarations that education in North America needs improvement in a lot of ways and that the M should be a guideline, rather than a statute. But let's not take up the mantle of statements that inexorably link violent games to youth environments. That'll just feed the faulty chain of logic that well-meaning lawmakers grasp upon in their band-aid solutions: "if we ban violent games, high schools will be safe again!"
Fangamer
I have to agree with Simon Roberts, though, on the subject of high school preparing kids for what they'll see in the game. Perhaps it's desensitized me to the language, but that's about it.
The amount of attention games are getting, particularly GTA, is ridiculous. My English teacher seems to be in favor of censorship of games, but there's much more graphic material in her class that's required reading. If you try to look at from their perspective, books are much more dangerous to children. You may not control the action directly, but you have to paint the picture in your head. Clearly though, they're not opposed to books, which tells me that they just need a scapegoat for their bad parenting.
That's a glib interpretation. Using the ESRB is a tool to help parents decide, but much like other people are saying, it's not canon to them. Parents who understand what content is in a game and carefully decide to let their kids play aren't bad parents... it's the ones that don't understand what's in a game and still say it's okay. While an ESRB rating in and of itself is broad in definition (E, T, M, etc.), the box always contains descriptors on the back to mention the content that warranted the rating.
While I somewhat agree with you that using JUST the ESRB rating is still being a bit misinformed, the alternative of not having the rating is far worse.
Also, a good parent is one who continues to evolve with the world around them in order to better understand their children and the world they live in. Experience doesn't stop with the birth of a child.
@ecco6t9:
Erm... M rating is 17+. That means there's no with him when the interview was conducted. It seems to me he was recalling past experiences.
Yep. Your imagination can take you far beyond the content of any game.
You have a point to some extent but the situations you list are in fact cases of bad parenting. Believe it or not good parents do in fact know if their kids are having suicidal feelings. Good parents don't go with hear no evil see no evil. Good parents get involved in their childrens lives. My parents made sure when I had feelings that weren't normal (depression etc.) that I got help. Did I tell them about those feelings you ask? No I didn't my parents did what good parents do. They talked to me and asked questions. That is the basis of good parenting being IN your childs life. For parents that do that the ESRB is a good start. But they ultimately should be the ones making the decisions.
SPOT ON! :)
I noticed that you didn't put that you were arrested for the items listed and, unless you are incredibly skilled at manipulating objects beyond the grave or undead, you did not commit suicide so you and your family wouldn't have fallen into the topic that I discussed.
My topic was in response to the comment "A parent knows their own child better than anyone else and is in the best position to know what is or is not appropriate for their own child." Which we both hinted that the statement is a bit flawed as there are many parents who need a lesson in parenting.
Actually, what the FTC said a year ago was that when you provide a teenager (13 -16) with money, transportation, and instructions to buy an M-rated game they are successful at major retailers less than half the time (37%). As such, it’s difficult to say how big of a problem sales of M-rated games to minors really is. What would be really telling is an FTC study on how often sales of M-rated games to minors actually happens in the real world.
Oh, and if no one is disputing that kids “can and do get these games by other means” than why are you and others trying to pass legislation to prevent sales to children, the least common method of children obtaining these games?
“Duh” indeed.
Andrew Eisen
You must have dyslexia, because the rest of us saw that less than half the time an underage buyer was successful, and more than half the time they were turned away.
Also, kids of all ages,explain to me how an infant or a toddelr would know how to make such a purchase.
Also, what of the MPAA then?
Please go be with your wife and kid. Best wishes to her with whatever it is she has.
Jack, while some retailers have sold M-Rated games to kids, the majority of them ask for an ID and the percentage of stores that card for an ID is increasing. Also I get the feeling that those kids who do buy M games get the money from their parents. One last thing Jack the article isn't saying that this is the only way that kids get violent video games; what it is saying is that this is how these three kids got GTA.
The day that English teachers are Pro-censorship is the day that the world flys down the shithole faster than a super-powered turd
If you don't know the difference between reality and fiction, then you don't get to play.
Then again, both my parents play games now... more often than me these days.
You mean other means such as their parents purchasing M rated games for with full knowledge of the content, and no objection to it? Like two of these kids had done?
Horror of horrors, clearly retailers must put a stop to this! Parents can't be allowed to raise their own kids! Only the State, and lawyers wishing they could be Big Brother can be allowed to raise people's children.
Hella.
People like to blame video games for society's ills, but one essential fact remains; violence has always been present in the life of children, with even less nowdays. In my old school in India teachers used to beat kids for answering questions wrong. This is worse than playing Halo 3, this teaches kids that violent retribution is right. Yet ask a teacher in India what they think about video games, and they will probably talk about the degeneration by popular media. Video games are just used as scapegoats for all the problems in sociey, and people Jack Thompson find it easy to critizice virtual violence but not real life violence, i have never heard Jack Thompson talking about the million dead Iraqis or the four thousand dead American servicemen. this is the case with Fox news too, they find it easy to rave on about how video games will make you a killer, but they will always support violent solutions to problems in real lfe. This exposes a great amount of hypocrisy.
Very well put.