Network now...NEWS
Study: Mature Ratings Labels Tempt Minors
A new study based on the European game content ratings system warns pediatricians of the "forbidden fruit effect" that makes videogames with restrictive age labels and violent content labels more enticing to young audiences.
A summary for the study concluded, "Although the Pan European Game Information [PEGI] system was developed to protect youth from objectionable content, this system actually makes such games forbidden fruits.
"Pediatricians should be aware of this forbidden-fruit effect, because videogames with objectionable content can have harmful effects on children and adolescents."
PEGI's age labels that appear on videogame packaging include 3+, 7+, 12+, 16+ and 18+.
Descriptors shown on the back of packaging includes violence (pictured), bad language, fear, drugs, sexual, discrimination, gambling and online gameplay.
The study involved 310 Dutch youth, who "read fictitious videogame descriptions and rated how much they wanted to play each game."
Doctors from the University of Amsterdam and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor led the study.
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
I can't believe that anyone could put a spin on this research to imply that the ratings system is flawed. The premise of the research is more of a sociological and psychological nature. That this article doesn't point that out seems to me like they're trying to put a question on the rating system. We could probably question rating systems based on how they are formulated and implemented. To say that we shouldn't have rating systems because they turn mature games into forbidden fruits is like saying we should have coccaine lying around the house so that teenagers won't be tempted by taboo. The only beneficiaries of removing rating labels are games that have limited market because of their mature content. This an irresponsible research with circular logic.
We know that the younger games will find violent films and computer games like GTA4 just as attractive as an adult would, probably more so given that young people are so impressionable not only by the adult world but by their peers.
Whether it be an 18 certificate on the side of the box or a Parental Advisory Sticker, only makes things more attractive to the younger people, because it offers a certain amount of credibility, we've all been there I'm sure many can relate. Having said all that, I don't understand what exactly does this study set out to prove?
In my opinion, this latest study isn't really suggesting anything new, just re clarifying what we already knew. Besides which, I would suggest that the sort of people that get offended by violence in computer games or in fact violence in the mainstream in general are in the minority. What it boils down to is a lack of parental responsibility, I don't think further censorship and control is the answer, but may be education is.
Exactly my point!
First parents let their children play WOW or any other game for 8 hours in straight, daily. And when the shit hits the fun and those kids are starting to jump with the knives on them, they're immediately point their finger at something ells. 5000 years of life experience has proved that the more you blame someone, the more guilty you are.
The rating system is almost completely superfluous anyway. If the 7 year old can't buy a copy of GTA 4, well then he'll get his Super Tennent's drinking, chain smoking mother to buy a copy.
Seriously though, my 13 year old nephew bought himself a copy of GTA 4 last year without any problems. Retailers enforcing the age-rating would not solve the problem but is would cetrainly make it difficult enough for a lot of kids to give up rather than seek other ways of getting the game.
Where do you live? I can't imagine anywhere in the UK selling GTA 4 to a 13 year old.
London, he bought one in the flagship store Oxford Street, I would know, I was there.
I can't believe that anyone would want to play a game solely off its rating. Quality, gameplay and reviews are always what interested me. I've never wanted to see a movie simply because it was rated "R" either.
Brian
www.brianwoods.com
The only possible way to solve this problem is through nurturing and educating your children from the diaper age till they stop sitting on your neck ;). Irresponsible parents aren't the ones who didn't brought you the game, but the ones who didn't teach you to understand the differences and draw the lines.
Age ratings for games are some of the pointless inventions in history. They just don't work.
Wasn't this "revelation" made light of in the 80's when "parental advisory: explicit lyrics" stickets started being put on the front of music and albums sales skyrocketed?
They needed to do a new study to discover what most people have known for years and years? Talk about a time-waster.
Games stores need to regulate this as much as parents,how hard can it be to send an internal memo to staff reminding them of the need to enforce age restrictions,they're as much to blame as chav mums....
What makes you think that game stores don't enforce age restriction? I can tell you that the vast, vast majority of the time that a person under the age rating gets hold of a game is nothing to do with a store selling the game to them. It's either because the parent bought it, or they got it off a friend.
Those that slip through are generally the ones just under the rating, who look older.
I agree with your argument,hence my “chav mums” reference,i just think all avenues need to be explored.I'm also sure nobody wants these decisions left just to censors and the daily mail....
I think things with a rating label tempt adults, too. Just look at 90% of the movies that are released on DVD, they slap a huge "Unrated version!" as a selling point on the cover. Face it, people in the comfort of their own home like blood, gore, nudity, etc. Even the hypocrite adults that pretend to hate stuff like that and refuse to be seen in public at a movie theatre are buying up the unrated version of Knocked Up. It's very interesting that NC-17 or an Unrated film either won't be shown at a theatre or will, but will sell poorly only to then be used as a selling point when they come to DVD. People act the way society expects them to in public, but once they're in their own home, it’s fair game. I’m speaking of the U.S where society freaks about anything related to sexuality.
I guess it is a bit similar here in the UK, although i don't think (incoming sweeping generalisation) that the UK is quite as conservative as the US.
It want be a problem when people will stop making one from it. Another study has shown that when the life gets better and less problematic, people are starting to make problems from air to keep them occupied.
Yes, inventing such problems is a classic case of being too well off for one's own good. :)
In other news bears shit in the woods.
Perhaps parents should I dunno, say no once in a while?
Cool. They should put one of these ratings on Windows Vista.
Lol, good one Deeznuts.
I understand it's easier to discuss things when there's hard evidence, but isn't this very very very obvious? Show kids anything with a cool description and a high age rating and they'll want it.
I'm sure some anti-game conservatives are going to quote these results in their quests to hinder the sales of games.