In the news: The Byron Review reviewed

I know! They didn't even find Manhunt at that kids house in 2004. Apparently he'd never played it. Note to TEBBIT: You're right the old system shouldn't be confusing. But when I worked at Game parents thought it was like a 'skill' rating, like they have on some toys. Yanno like how complex it is. And there are a lot of parents out there who think their 8 year old is as smart as a 16 year old. P.s. why do we keep calling these little future gang-bangers Jimmy? I do it but WHY?!!!

A person is murdered and the police find a game in the murderer's house and voila the News industry has hit a jackpot. They can make a big article of that incident and put a lot of crap into it and publish it. And we gamers will read it and laugh at it and return to our Gaming device to play GTA or Manhunt or etc....

I'm glad GameSpot grilled "The Times" reporting on this story. I was extremely disappointed with the newspaper for its blatant scare-mongering. Looks like the "Telegraph" gave the most balanced reporting.

i have but on thing to say **** OFF

Your complaining about how people can misunderstand the rating system ... and yet this report comes out fairly possitively for games being more than just for kids and the need for the general public to understand that .... so why do so many gamers get up in arms about it ???

How is the current rating system confusing? If it says 16+, it means that someone under 16 should not play it. It makes sense, but it isn't really that useful, because anything an 18 year old is playing is probably going to be suitable for 16 year olds.

The only real reason that the ratings exist are to inform parents who buy their children games on what kind of violence or other "unsuitable" stuff it contains, which is why I think that introducing a ratings system that actually has serious legal reprecussions would silence the Jack Thompsons of the world, but wouldn't improve anything else. If Columbine Jimmy wants to go and kill people in real life, he's gonna get that inclination from Croc: Legend of the Gobbos just as much as he will from Counter-Strike

They are doing a right thing.

Its people like this that take something fun and good and try to make seem bad. im not going to go out and start doing drive-bys because i see it in gta or go strangle someone with razor wire because its in manhunt. i mean come on its common sense. do people really think kids will go on a killing spree because of a game. from a young age children are taught that hurting people is bad. i mean to make this sound rude or demeaning but you would have to be mentally challenged or raised bad to think its okay to hurt someone. if children are angry or something, then they can can do something to a piece of data instead of hurting someone else. every time i get a game my parents tell me "this isnt something thats real, you dont just go out and start killing people." blame falls on the parents. most of these people that go out and kill other people tend to grow up in bad homes. but no, people dont believe that, they say doing something to an AI caused this.

Jesus Christ, if the government here actually spent the money on disadvantaged areas like mine, maybe I wouldn't be sat here playing games for 13 hours a day because theres nothing to do...

I've had it with Gordon, he doesn't do jack-all...I can forgive Blair for the Iraq War mess up but Brown's just sitting around wasting money on pointless surveys....

Parents aren't using them because they don't know how , and they don't see games as anything more than a kids toy .. that's what this report says .. parents should be made aware and take responsibility. everyone is so quick to say .. ahh , this is all common sense .. but it's getting mainstream press coverage and is therefore adding value to itself .. the more people understand that games aren't just for kids the less problems 18 rated games will have. as for the confussing age rating system ... i buy a game that says 7+ does that mean it's not suitable for someone under 7 due to content or complexity ? we all know it's content .. but non gamers don't have a scooby !!

The gaming industry cannot, and should not, be held liable for bad parenting. Most current generation systems have parental controls built in already. Why aren't the parents using them? There is software to block "illicit" sites on the Internet. Why aren't parents using them? Most TV shows have a rating and a lot of TVs have the VChip now. Why aren't parents using them?

Bingo!

Can't wait for the Surgeon General to pop his head on the back of my copy of GTA 5! Yea, like that'll ever happen in the US. Yes, video games, just like movies, TV, and music can harm the "development of a children's beliefs and value systems and desensitize them to violence", if the parent's do an awful job at bringing them up. When I play COD4, I feel no remorse when I shot some bad guy, (though I give the game credit for getting me emotionally evolved in a lot of the game), but when I see video of the war in Iraq on CNN, I feel awful about it, so it's obvious I'm not desensitized to REAL violence at all. So if they put a label on video games, they should put a label on CNN as well. Hell, I can play Manhunt 2 without a cringe, but there's no way I can watch a Saw movie from start to finish.

As for America, not only is the video games rating board tougher then the movie and TV rating boards, but they are much more in depth, and much more accurate then either of these are. Plus, there are parental controls on every system, and every video game (excluding the PC) that's sold at retail. You can't say the same for TV and movies. There already are "locking mechanisms". They would know that if they actually did any research at all on what they were talking about.

Like I said, good parenting, and letting kids play age appropriate games, for appropriate times, balancing them with other activities is perfectly fine, and could even be considered healthy. And at the end of the day it's better to be shooting hookers in Grand Theft Auto at 15 then shooting up real people, in real life at 18. *Insert other examples*

There's no reason why an M rated game shouldn't be able to be sold to a minor. That's perfectly fine, and I have no problem having that law enforced all across the US. And I have no problem placing a huge fine or loss of employment to those who break it. But the FACT that it's easier to sell cigarettes or alcohol to a minor and get away with it then it is to sell video games to one is asinine. It's also sad that in New York, selling video games to a minor is a felony, and is considered breaking a higher law then selling cigarettes or alchohol to a minor. Thus, you will get punished worse for it.

"She also calls the current games rating system by the British Board of Film Classification 'confusing and not tough enough.'"

I concur, I mean 3+, 6+, 12+, 16+, 18+ WTF does that mean? -.-

Ban crap juranlism Ban crap money wasting governments and above all Ban living because at some point you will die fact ok !!! Why don't these moral saviours and co just get a real job instead of wasting how much cash sp**ked up the wall for this report ??? to tell parents that owww maybe little Billy should not be playing GTA4 ( not out yet ) and watching some hardcore online whilst supposedly doing his geography homework ??? and they wonder why people go on the rampage ??? wheres guy fawkes when you need him .

@ScrunchMuppet: The tabloid refers to the Metro, "which concludes, games such as Manhunt 2 and Grand Theft Auto IV have been criticised for their violent content"

And you can get The Times in a tabloid sized edition.

it's sony's fault. They have these spies that try to undermine the superiority of the xbox360. I knew it would lead to this....

(It called the current ratings system "piecemeal and partly voluntary," and stated that under methods proposed by Byron, "age guidance would be clearly printed on its sleeve in a way that can be understood by parents who are not computer-savvy.")

First of all you don't need computer or tech skills of any sort to understand what the 17+ sticker on a M rated game means.

Second credible psychologist and reality show seem like an oxymoron, i'm sure she has a degree but that only means she went through college it does not mean she is credible or that she is any good at what she does.

I like the fact that she is saying that parents should pay more attention, but the bottom line is she is still just using gaming as the current scapegoat for violence just like everybody used rap music in the 90s

This all dates back to the "my child is perfect he would never do that. Video games are to blame" scenario.

I'm amazed the Times weren't even harsher. Given how they think that running out of Toilet Paper in the Staff Toilets is enough to spark World War III; I'm amazed how they didn't rip into the fact that kids will probably want those 18 games even more if they are enforced by law. Just to say, "Ha! I'm cool! I have an adult game! What the hell is Grand Theft Auto?"

It's still hillarious to me that it's taken 6 months to say that in the end it's the parents fault, not the industry. Ha Ha! Look see! I'm laughing! It's hillarious! Hahahahahaha!

I like to eat mushrooms and jump on peoples heads. Thanks a lot Nintendo.

Can we please stop blaming violence on games? These people were acting like one person never killed another person before games were invented. Remember the civil war? How about the old west, where you could be shot for just about anything? In my mind, they're just using games as a scapegoat to cover over for the general population's lack of parenting skills. Cause it's not the parents that raise their kids, right?

... no credibility in the field .... your so right ... well apart from all the child psychology credentials obviously ! but apart from that .. oh and the fect that all the data collected was from child gamers and their responces .... so apart from the proffesional qualifications and the credible data collected she's just a hack !!

Why did GameSpot leave out the part in the times that outright says violent games can still be made, just not for children? Which is perfectly plausible reason.

Plus its pretty clear this review is telling parents what they should already know! Modern parents are really just... argh...

Anyway I'm not concerned, given that I'm over 18.

Boogieman shes not a journalist or at least she wasnt before she did House of Tiny Tearaways, she has more than adequate qualifications in the field of psychology so whether shes right or wrong you cant slate her as purely a journalist.

I don't understand what she is driving at. I mean there is no way that somebody could possibly be that ignorant to believe this, yet she acts as though it is scripture. To be perfectly honest I think she is an otherwise unknown journalist who wants to be better known so she goes to a topic that she knows will get press, despite having no credibility in that feild(seriously you think being a journalist gives you credibility with video games?) and creates this column.

ScrunchMuppet

either that's because of the size change or the fact that the times is just the Sun using bigger words !

The Times is a "former broadsheet turned tabloid?"? Since when? Or is that just a dig at the paper?

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

I reallt can't see how the cigarette style stickers will work, most of them say "Cigarettes Kill" or something, they better not put "Could cause murderous violence in children"

VolcanicDemon 'Ah rubbish! **** RUBBISH!! Games have no impact on children!!! Parents should tell their children not to do what is being done in the games they're playing (unless they're playing the sims). I played many violent games as a child and they had no effect on me!! I think 3 year olds should be playing gta games and manhunt!! They will mature them a bit!!'

I hope you never have kids, would you let your child watch the Saw movies? Similar to manhunt >_>

"were prepared to live with plans for rigorously enforced ratings if it averted censorship and kept the £18 billion industry on track." I am sorry, but what BS. This is defacto censorship. She is saying "censor yourselves, or we will." What is the difference?

And, how is she "empowering" parents? By taking away some of their responsiblity and giving it to the government? What backwards logic.

Ah rubbish! **** RUBBISH!! Games have no impact on children!!! Parents should tell their children not to do what is being done in the games they're playing (unless they're playing the sims). I played many violent games as a child and they had no effect on me!! I think 3 year olds should be playing gta games and manhunt!! They will mature them a bit!!

wow, i cant remember the last time i saw noob used without being surrounded on either side by a string of sexual and racial expletives
I apologise if i overemphasised your point.

I was actually thinking more about being called a 'n00b' every single time I get a decent kill, so you don't need to take me too seriously about that.

This is a good read. But I've said it before and I'll say it again: Parents are responsible for their child's actions. The lazy, irresponsible parents will always find a scapegoat to justify their actions as a parent, This scapegoat will also be the media, with video games being at the top.

In Tom Sawyer, Tom beats up a kid just because he thinks that he is wearing clothes that are too nice for Sunday, right after they have an all out brawl which they fantasize as a war. Its funny how what is considered a classic of children's literature has so many elements that are looked down on today.

I agree with Range_Finder. I too have been in a shop where a boy no older than ten picked up a copy of GTA:SA. His mother pointed out Vice City instead (probably because of the brighter colours), to which he said he had already played it and insisted on having SA. BOTH games have a big, round '18' plastered on the cover! It is definitely mindless parents who are most to blame for the corruption of their children, not the developers, publishers, retailers or console manufacturers.

Actually DeepDreamer256 i am currently reading the full byron report, and though there does seem to be some well grounded views expressed the approach to rectifying the problems displayed can in many ways be viewed as 'intrusive' when there are many simpler more straight forward approaches that if implemented and backed would have a better response. And as for the views some have expressed on here about kids on LIVE, it could be seen the other way in that not all games with young children playing are inappropriate for their age but the language used by some of their fellow gamers certainly isnt appropriate for them to be exposed to. Surely you cant reasonably think it can be the childs fault if they are playing something that is appropriate for them to have to witness the sort of foul mouthed rantings ive heard before and blame the child?
Her main point in much of the content is not that the violence itself is uncalled for its that before a certain age a childs brain is still developing the mechanisms it follows throughout life and exposure to certain questionable themes and actions can cause an adverse effect on the childs future development.
Im of the view that if parents were behaving in an appropriate manner a majority of the material viewed as a problem in the report would be made into a moot point because the kids wouldnt be getting exposed to it in the first place.
And Benco18 is it really any surprise? in years gone by it has been TV, Movies and Music, do you really think parents are going to acknowledge the fact that the failing is their own?

Other countries don't seem to have a problem with games. Maybe it's the American upbringing. And it is also the American culture to blame everything but themselves

It's amazing how gaming takes the blame for everything wrong with society.

I completely agree that certain games are not produced to be played by very young children. There should be ways in place to keep graphic games out of kids' hands if it's inappropriate material.

However, I think labeling video games much like a cigarette is prepostorous. Video games have nothing in common with nicotene. You don't smoke them.

Really, parents just need to be educated about video games in general if they're going to let their kids play them. I've been a gamer for almost 20 years and when I have kids, I'm going to damn well know what they're playing and have what control over that I can.

Some movies aren't meant for kids (porn), some games aren't meant for kids (Manhunt). It's as simple as that. "Cinema-style" ratings are really the way to go, because it's industry controlled, not government controlled.

Of course, who knows if video games can REALLY have a harmful effect on children anyway, aside from time loss.

It is our freedom to play video games. This is why we live in a free country. As long as the games are fairly labeled, there is nothing anyone can do.

Okay. So basically retailers should be treated as criminals, games are as bad as cigarettes, and all of a sudden throwing up at the slightest sign of blood is a good thing? (Referring to desensitization.) There are some games that kids should be kept well away from, that's for sure; but I think she is taking the situation slightly out of context. Besides, since when was employing a hypercorruptophobic health and safety zealot a good thing?

Still, given the likelihood those newspapers spun the hell out of it, it would be better to read the actual report before becoming muderous over it. Besides, as someone said, maybe not competing against whiny 8 year old's online would be a good thing.

'According to the News Corporation-owned newspaper, video games are now going to have to carry cigarette-style health warnings. '

I mea wtf? Ok yes clamp down on age ratings etc but do games need warnings on them?

im 18 so these warnings dont really bother me, cant wait to see a game commercial where at the end they'll say "gears of war 2 may lead to nightmares, upset stomach, anger, or anxiety, ask your doctor if gears of war 2 is right for u" hahaha wow.....well hopefully this will keep parent from buying their 5 year old kids MATURE games, and that'll keep them and their annoying antics off LIVE....only one can hope

FishnPeas1 it isnt going to matter if the kid is with an adult or not, most parents pander to the slightest whim of their children anyway, i myself have been inline when someone bought their 8 year old kid GTA:SA the guy behind the counter clearly knew it was the kid who had chosen it because he said "You realise that game isnt suitable for a child of that age?" to which the parent responded "Yes, but its the one he wants."
I do though agree that it is entirely the parents fault, in fact my opinion is that this whole review was probably only good for making parents feel like maybe their kid being a yob isnt their fault and they dont suck at being a parent at all.
I very much hope you stick to your guns about making sure that your daughter doesnt play unsuitable games and its nice that real parenting still lives on somewhere.
If they wanted to help cut the number of inappropriate titles sold to children its easy enough change the law concerning sales of games so that a retailer has the power to refuse the sale of a game if they believe that the rating on the game is higher than the intended recipient (regardless as to whether the child has got their parent to take it to the counter), and to secondly punish retailers who blatantly put profits above the possible consequences of selling an age rated game to a minor.

Its a simple enough concept - stop allowing children into games shops unacompanied by an adult. Games should only be purchased by adults for their childrem anyway. I'm sick of the goverment blaming gaming/tv/new media for the corruption of children when the actual fact is THE PARENTS ARE TO BLAME! But god forbid we ever hold them responsible for producing bad children! I have a 2 year old girl, and beleive me when I say that she will not be buying any game unsuitable for her as long as I draw breath. The quicker parents decide to take a bit of responsibility for their childrens actions, the quicker we can get back to gaming.

Pointless waste of time, she flat out refused to put ANY of the blame on the parents in a radio interview this morning, but if Little Johhny, aged 8, is playing Grand Theft Auto they'll have been the ones who bought it for him.

I love how some papers are pointing the finger at Grand Theft Auto 4... a game that isn't out for another month and that nonw of them will ever play... good old tabloid journalism... 100% fact free.

Amazing that so much tax payers money has to be spent to find out what we all knew already - not enough parents know what they're doing and not all games are suitable for children - duh!

How exactly you can be confused by a big giant 18 slapped on the front of a box I don't know and how slapping a big giant 12 on them as well is going help is a mystery. Plenty of parents will STILL pay no attention and then go crying to the Daily Mail about games when little Johnny threatens them with a pen knife. A pen knife they gave him before bugg*ring off to work and leaving him on his own all day...

And after the Manhunt 2 fiasco how can we trust the BBFC to rate more games when they seem unable to cope with what they have to do at the moment?

I also agree with the lock out system, even though she has ignored that some form of that system is on place on the 360 already.

In Australia, on the cable channels, every single show is age rated, and then parents can set the box to not show things of a certain rating. A similar system that prevents the family Xbox from playing all games of a certain classification would be a great idea.

Do it, do it now. Then when everyone remains equally screwed up we can all continue to play games in peace.