My Four-Year-Old Son Plays Grand Theft Auto

[GGT]

Yeah...none of these are related to, much less reliant towards, a 4 year old being allowed to free roam in GTA. You're playing the one in a million catastrophe card, which in one form or another, can be used to agrue againist allowing anyone to do anything.

No, it's not. It's about four year olds, parenting, and gaming. Just look at the title. The OP had one dad's story and POV, and many here thought it was a cute 'lil story, end of story.

I saw another side of the story and decided to post my opinion. Lo and behold you'd think I was trying to pull some Jack Thompson stunt by the way that was greeted. Seemed to me you guys were trying to defend something but couldn't really say why. Only Crowheart made a stab at it, and he made sense of his POV.

There's nothing report-worthy about moving the goal posts

Would it make you feel better if I started a new thread? Nah, methinks you wouldn't post in a thread about moving goal posts for toddlers or pre-schoolers in the 21st century.

Point taken, though. I mentioned something no one finds interesting or cares to pursue.

[Ominous Gamer]

(not directly meant as a reply to any specific post)

Even E games have had problems in the past.

Mario plays with fire.
Kids have hurt themselves because of Harry Potter's flying.
Pokemon hits about 11 levels of fucked up.
Nintendo Dogs has gotten kids mauled.

To pick GTA out because a 4 year old was free roaming because, and ONLY BECAUSE the box says M... thats bad.

[Nessus]

Would it make you feel better if I started a new thread? Nah, methinks you wouldn't post in a thread about moving goal posts for toddlers or pre-schoolers in the 21st century.

It's pretty obvious no one else would have to post since you seem pretty content having conversations by your lonesome

[Ominous Gamer]

I saw another side of the story and decided to post my opinion.

This is the problem. You created your side of the story. You fabricated a scenario, using events that haven't happened, that no one has thus advocated in happening.

Then you went and ignored questions to explain how a 4 year old could possible set your scenario in motion.

[GGT]

(not directly meant as a reply to any specific post)

Even E games have had problems in the past.

Mario plays with fire.
Kids have hurt themselves because of Harry Potter's flying.
Pokemon hits about 11 levels of fucked up.
Nintendo Dogs has gotten kids mauled.

To pick GTA out because a 4 year old was free roaming because, and ONLY BECAUSE the box says M... thats bad.

Hey, I did not create that dad's story or this thread.

Why do you suppose he took some satisfaction in titling it, My Four-Year-Old Son Plays Grand Theft Auto? It could have been called any number of things, but mentioning his son's age and the specific game was important to him, for some reason.

Feel free to explain if you think he's thumbing his nose at ratings, parents who look at ratings, if all games should come with lockable levels for all ages, if kids should be free-rangers for all games, the role of the parent, the effect on the child....or whatever you DO think this is about.

(btw kids will make guns out of their fingers or sticks, play with squirt guns and BB guns; I'm not anti-gun and never suggested this was about guns or shooting games, but more about the age of the player)

[GGT]

It's pretty obvious no one else would have to post since you seem pretty content having conversations by your lonesome

[Crowheart]

Would it make you feel better if I started a new thread? Nah, methinks you wouldn't post in a thread about moving goal posts for toddlers or pre-schoolers in the 21st century.

Point taken, though. I mentioned something no one finds interesting or cares to pursue.

I think it is interesting, actually.
The goalposts haven't moved, people want to protect their children now, as my parents did when I was a child.
The medium of games though is very complicated compared to other mediums...the playing field is very different indeed.

A rated R movie, is always rated R..there is always a naked lady at 1:25 into the movie, that never changes regardless of whose watching.
The word "fuck" is always the 54th word in a book, that never changes regardless of whose reading it.

Games however..the experience changes every time.
In GTA, you're not always shooting gangsters in the first minutes, sometimes, you're shopping for clothes.
You're not always initiating a mission cutscene with questionable language, sometimes, you're just at the Bowling Alley.

I think gaming is much harder to supervise..the content changes, the length of many games go far, far longer than a movie, for example, and it's hard for a parent on the go to get the time to go through all that, or be there all the time...and yeah, the ESRB rating can be a good tool to help those people.

But for those of us that do have a more specific knowledge of the game can approach the problem from a different point of view.

It's just a matter of acknowleging that gaming is a totally different beast, and can be tackled in multiple ways to achieve a result.
That's all I'm trying to say.

[Catgrrl]

I can't speak for the guy, but I think he was saying that a game alone doesn't make a child go out and hurt others. People are quick to blame video games for the violence among our youth. I think he was showing that supervising and explaining the difference between real and fake is what parents are supposed to do. The kid did show he cared even about the fictional characters getting hurt.
It's a doube-edged sword though. There are parents that don't even look at ratings and just buy crap for their kids.
Lack of parental involvement is so much more dangerous.

I guess also his article was meant to invoke discussion and debate, so objective completed, right?

Oh ya, to reply to GGT:You're right about that much: There wasn't as much in your face tech as there is today, so while we did play games it was often only 30min to an hour. Of course games weren't as involved as now, where 30 min is the cinematic intro and tutorial. LOL We were encouraged to go out and play (but not be a nuisance to our neighbors). There should always be a balance.

My hypocrisy is that the TV is on all day. I have to have background noise. I'm hoping I can break the habit when K can walk and we spend more time outside.

[Catgrrl]

off-topic: speaking of movies, I remember going to see Jurassic Park before the ratings were required. I was 12, scared the shit out of me. My 10 yr old sister and 7 yr old brother laughed their asses off. They're less wussy than I am I guess.

My parents just thought it was a dinosaur movie......

[Nessus]

so while we did play games it was often only 30min to an hour.

How old were you again?

[Ominous Gamer]

Feel free to explain if you think he's thumbing his nose at ratings, parents who look at ratings, if all games should come with lockable levels for all ages, if kids should be free-rangers for all games, the role of the parent, the effect on the child....or whatever you DO think this is about.

The article is old. Its likely a response to the media outrage thats drummed up everytime a new GTA game gets released. It could very well be about the awful rating system, the lazy parents who enforce the system, and the role of the parent, but none of that is apparent in the article. So I don't want anyone to assume thats what this parent was thinking; creating something from nothing in this thread is all you right now.

but more about the age of the player

Using this logic, children of a certain age, in your opinion, shouldn't be allowed to play. Else they risk exploring concepts that you may be uneasy about

[Catgrrl]

That would have been when I was in single digits, only NES and Atari then. You could play a game or two in 30 min, especially with short attention spans. And with two siblings you have to take turns! we only had one TV until I was a teen.


At my Granny's we were given more leeway.

[Ominous Gamer]

Nintendo has been really good about timing their games with kids. We can get through an entire Mario Party course in about half an hour. On the SNES the next save castle or mansion is only 2-3 4 minute courses away, Super mario on the Wii is a little longer, but it does allow temp saves.

Now when we all sat down with Age of Empires (Brandy and Ocean shared a team), that dragged out to almost 3 hours because I wasn't allowed to kill Brent before he attacked

[GGT]

I think it is interesting, actually.
The goalposts haven't moved, people want to protect their children now, as my parents did when I was a child.
The medium of games though is very complicated compared to other mediums...the playing field is very different indeed.

Maybe same goals, with new and more (and more) balls?

A rated R movie, is always rated R..there is always a naked lady at 1:25 into the movie, that never changes regardless of whose watching.
The word "fuck" is always the 54th word in a book, that never changes regardless of whose reading it.

Ness already dismissed movies as being pertinent to this thread.

Games however..the experience changes every time.
In GTA, you're not always shooting gangsters in the first minutes, sometimes, you're shopping for clothes.
You're not always initiating a mission cutscene with questionable language, sometimes, you're just at the Bowling Alley.

I think gaming is much harder to supervise..the content changes, the length of many games go far, far longer than a movie, for example, and it's hard for a parent on the go to get the time to go through all that, or be there all the time...and yeah, the ESRB rating can be a good tool to help those people.

But for those of us that do have a more specific knowledge of the game can approach the problem from a different point of view.

It's just a matter of acknowleging that gaming is a totally different beast, and can be tackled in multiple ways to achieve a result.
That's all I'm trying to say.

And I agree with you for the most part, Crow. Gaming IS harder to supervise now. ESRB IS helpful. But since it's rated for adults, the kid did "take" a police car, and the dad kept saying "it's just a game!", a kid's next logical question might be, "So why is this a grown-up game again, daddy? If you let me play it, and it's just driving around and stuff?"

I also understand how GTA has a "reputation" (that the OP acknowledged) as one of the more controversial games to talk about. He also said:

The ESRB rating found on every game cover is a great tool for parents who are not familiar with games and their content, but I strongly disagree with using it as a tool to raise our kids. Every child is different and, as parents, it is our responsibility to cater to their individual needs. I understand not every kid is like mine, so I wouldn’t recommend that every parent allow their child to play Grand Theft Auto. But I would recommend that you listen and pay attention to your little ones to determine what they are capable of handling and what they are not ready for yet.

I don't agree with him that using ratings as a TOOL for child-rearing is a bad thing, any more than using AAP guidelines is a bad thing.

As more and more games are created, and parents want to play their own, and allow kids access to games, too.....it just won't be possible (for anyone other than a professional gamer or IT expert) to know every.single.game. from personal experience. That's why ESRB is a decent guideline.

He says it's our responsibility as parents to know our kids, treat them as individuals, listen to them and play WITH them when they're little. I agree with that, too. But then he admits he 'egged' the boy on, and was satisfying his own adult/parental curiosity as the game went on.

[Catgrrl]

True. One nice thing about the NES/SNES. We even recently acquired a 64 from a friend who was moving, lots of old games to play. You can play for a short time, blow off stem, and be done with it.

Though we have had marathon Mario Kart racing before....

[GGT]

The article is old. Its likely a response to the media outrage thats drummed up everytime a new GTA game gets released. It could very well be about the awful rating system, the lazy parents who enforce the system, and the role of the parent, but none of that is apparent in the article. So I don't want anyone to assume thats what this parent was thinking; creating something from nothing in this thread is all you right now.

Using this logic, children of a certain age, in your opinion, shouldn't be allowed to play. Else they risk exploring concepts that you may be uneasy about

:brickwall:

I'm not a lazy parent for having relied on ESRB. That would be YOUR false assumption. What seems illogical is encouraging a 4 yr old playing an adult game, instead of finding games designed for a 4 yr old. Or playing general games that are fun for everyone while fostering the physical needs of a 4 yr old. wii is good for that. I think most parents want to be involved but not be a helicopter parent, either.

If you think the rating system is awful, then suggest how it ought to be. Like it or not, parents will need/want/use a rating system for very young children. Just as they'll rely on a library system to group books by age and reading level.

[Ominous Gamer]

:brickwall:

I'm not a lazy parent for having relied on ESRB. That would be YOUR false assumption. What seems illogical is encouraging a 4 yr old playing an adult game, instead of finding games designed for a 4 yr old. Or playing general games that are fun for everyone while fostering the physical needs of a 4 yr old. wii is good for that. I think most parents want to be involved but not be a helicopter parent, either.

If you think the rating system is awful, then suggest how it ought to be.

Relying on other people, that you know nothing about, to tell you if something is good or bad is lazying parenting. Helicopter parenting (which I wouldn't be the first to accuse you of) is lazy parenting. The ESRB (from what I've seen) was created so parents wouldn't have to get so involved with their children. Its current operations are pressured by religious and activist groups that should have no say in how the nation's families raise their children. Similar groups are currently pressuring origizations like the FCC and MPAA.
The problems this causes have been brought up time and time again from producers and developers (watch my movie suggestion), about how murder and mayham is ok, but titties and sex are automatic AO material.

Before the ESRB parents were required to make educated purchasing decisions. Which you may find amazing before the advent of sites like Youtube that allow you to watch in game footage of a title, or search engines like Google that allowed you to search for trends around the game.
I make Brent search a game on youtube before he blows a few months allowance on it. Especially for on a console like the Wii. So much of the E game collection is simply shovelware, broken useless and generally a poor growing experience. Wouldn't believe the number of games he has decided againist, or the ones he has decided for, after educating himself before a purchase.
Takes a whopping 10-15 minutes most of the time.

Like it or not, parents will need/want/use a rating system for very young children. Just as they'll rely on a library system to group books by age and reading level.

Need is an awfully strong word, and it really doesn't belong here.
Libraries sort books based on ease of access, not to limit what children may discover. We follow the dewey decimal system, which for anyone thats work with it, can tell you its built around the general idea of horse shit.
The library systems, being funded as they are, are even more susceptible to outside group influence than the examples I've already listed. You know someone managed to get all of our Astro Boy comics deshelved from the YA graphic novels? Batman has also become a victim.

[GGT]

Again, you assume ONLY the ESRB is being used. You already know most game popularity travels by word-of-mouth from kid-to-kid. Stop assuming parents don't talk to one another too, or that we don't talk to other age groups or ask questions.

Still, if you don't like the system, then how about harping on the gaming industry for not making a better one, or a better way? Instead of criticizing parents who use what's available. You claim parents shouldn't Just Say No, but you also don't like what's available to them? Nice.

"Need" is a perfectly good word here. Especially for parents who aren't huge gamers, don't hang out with big gamers, but have children who want to play games.

[Ominous Gamer]

Again, you assume ONLY the ESRB is being used. You already know most game popularity travels by word-of-mouth from kid-to-kid. Stop assuming parents don't talk to one another too, or that we don't talk to other age groups or ask questions.

Only, or even as an influence. Both are bad.
Your own experience with the label system should tell you this. Their largest copout, and failing, is their "online experience may change during gameplay". Nothing like an E rated game of Xbox Vision Uno in a room full of cocks.

Still, if you don't like the system, then how about harping on the gaming industry for not making a better one, or a better way? Instead of criticizing parents who use what's available. You claim parents shouldn't Just Say No, but you also don't like what's available to them? Nice.

and you believe I haven't mentioned this before? You think that because I'm having this discussion with you on why the ESRB is anti-productive to its mission means I'm not aiming for a better system or better way? We (the forums) had this discussion before. We've talked about how games going digital media only could hopefully mean the death of the ESRB. Since the ESRB is a voluntary service and its only teeth is in a store not stocking games without a rating, or a store not selling to anyone without an ID (again, both a result of pressure groups).

"Need" is a perfectly good word here. Especially for parents who aren't huge gamers, don't hang out with big gamers, but have children who want to play games.

You interests not intersecting with your children's interests has nothing to do with raising said children, or in being able to spend time learning what is and is not appropriate in your house.

[GGT]

You're not answering the questions I posed, OG. How would you, or the industry, make a better rating system? What would that look like? What are your criteria and how would its effectiveness be measured? Bitch all you like, kill ESRB if you want....so far you've offered no specific option.

You may call me a helicopter parent, or insinuate my interests aren't generally for children or media content evolution. That'd be a bogus assumption on your part, too. My days of supervising toddlers and pre-schoolers are long behind me, my boys are both teens now, whew! (We have bigger fish to fry than just game-playing.) But I do have friends with young kids, I'm interested in children's developmental and health issues, as well as contemporary culture. It goes beyond "just my house".

[Ominous Gamer]

You're not answering the questions I posed, OG. How would you, or the industry, make a better rating system? What would that look like? What are your criteria and how would its effectiveness be measured? Bitch all you like, kill ESRB if you want....so far you've offered no specific option.

You're doing it again. You're trying to redirect the discussion, but you haven't answered the original questions posed to you.
none the less I'll bite, why do we need a rating system at all? I'm sure you'll be able to figure out why the one we have is a voluntary service sooner or later.

[GGT]

You're doing it again. You're trying to redirect the discussion, but you haven't answered the original questions posed to you.
none the less I'll bite, why do we need a rating system at all? I'm sure you'll be able to figure out why the one we have is a voluntary service sooner or later.

I thought I'd answered. Not all parents play video games, or can screen every.single.game their child plays. Either because they have a busy adult/work life, or would rather get out a board game or a book. That still leaves kids who want to play games, grandparents or aunts and uncles who want to give games as gifts, parents who DO care and don't want to Just Say No.

This isn't a re-direct (other than returning to the OP and your desire to discuss ratings). If there's not a universal rating system, then adults will still need/use recommendations. Again, don't assume everyone spends as many hours as you do playing computer or video games....so "recommendations" can be pretty hard to pinpoint. If people don't know many gamers who also know young children's needs, who the hell would they ask?

How about the Good Housekeeping Seal of Gaming? Five thumbs up from the creators of Sesame Street? Rave reviews from early-ed teachers or child behaviorists? Voluntary or Mandatory? Stop accusing parents of being lazy, and then expecting them to fly by the seat of their pants.

[Crowheart]

You're not answering the questions I posed, OG. How would you, or the industry, make a better rating system? What would that look like? What are your criteria and how would its effectiveness be measured? Bitch all you like, kill ESRB if you want....so far you've offered no specific option.

What I would do, would be to create an online resource that states exactly, specifically what content exists in the game.
The ESRB is too general right now..Give parents a resource to see precisely what they are buying..
It contains this language, these words, this many times.. this sex scene at this point, this amount and type of violence and gore, etc.
Something more specific than "Sexual situation, violence, language" on the back of the box.

Something where a parent could be more informed on the specifics, even those that can't put the hours into scouring through hours long games for content.
It will never replace going and getting that knowledge for yourself, but will be infinitely more helpful than an "M",or a "T", or other vague generalities.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ness already dismissed movies as being pertinent to this thread.

And I addressed that mvoie bit. I seem to recall your response being: have kids, then talk.

It was such a display of argumentative dexterity I felt I had no choice but to immediately abandon the thread.

[GGT]

That's actually a very good idea, Crow. It could include things like what cheat codes uncover or what modding can be done. Maybe it could be an open-edit source, so when that lady is found stripping naked for the protagonist (or other weird things a game creator might hide for some kind of twisted humor) parents can at least know. Go one step further, and have it available at a kiosk where games are purchased. Hold the game's UPC code up to a scanner and get the on-line reviews. Gift shoppers would use that in a heartbeat. (Again, assume grammy doesn't have a smart phone, doesn't play games, doesn't know where to look, even if she has a computer at home.)

I've looked games and movies up in google or wiki in the past, to see reviews and opinions beyond just what's said by ESRB. You're right, it is too general right now. Not sure how you'd get the current form of ratings off the boxes, though.


edit to Ziggy: My comment about kids was further explained later. As in, it goes from hypothetical to reality pretty fast, and people may change how they approach this. That was all I meant.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Still spectacularly fails to address my question.

[GGT]

Still spectacularly fails to address my question.

After all my posts, how can that be? Sorry, I don't remember your question now, Ziggy. But willing to try again, if you are!

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'd rather not.

I aim at the stars, but sometimes I hit London.

[GGT]

Yeah, and your avatar changed! Who is that--Freud in 3-D glasses or a grumpy looking Santa Clause?

[Ominous Gamer]

I thought I'd answered.

but we're still waiting on what part of GTA this 4 year old is going to be able to access that creates the scenario you already created

When his son is 8 years old and talking about taklng out/killing whores,

Quoting the latest one because when I used the word offensive, you claimed a copout.

Not all parents play video games, or can screen every.single.game their child plays.

I really don't see where this is a problem. As I've already pointed out, youtube and google take a whole of 10-15 minutes. If you can't devote 10-15 minutes every few days to understanding your children's interest, you are a lazy parent.

Either because they have a busy adult/work life, or would rather get out a board game or a book.

Irreverent to being a parent who takes an interest in their children.

That still leaves kids who want to play games, grandparents or aunts and uncles who want to give games as gifts,

Do people actually do this without inquiring what the kid wants/needs? I know you make it sound like there are.so.many games out there, surely people ask before randomly firing off the old credit card.
Not that this matters, parents are designed to play interference in these instances. This is hardly restricted to only video games.

parents who DO care and don't want to Just Say No.

This is makes no sense.

adults will still need/use recommendations.

No, they still don't need recommendations. They could also use playthroughs (youtube), balanced reviews (take your pick), or google to find if there is something in the game thats causing an increased interest (ie hot coffee)

Again, don't assume everyone spends as many hours as you do playing computer or video games....so "recommendations" can be pretty hard to pinpoint.

How many hours I spend playing is irreverent to understanding what the kids play. I've been playing strictly guildwars or months now, Brents gone through 5 or 6 games in that time period.

expecting them to fly by the seat of their pants.

Telling parents to research what their kids wants is telling them to fly by the seat of their pants? Is this 1984?