A fact that seems to have slipped past Blogger Kevin McCullough. This lack of insight appears to have fueled his attack on the Xbox 360 game Mass Effect in this poorly written and grossly inaccurate rant. We became aware of this disturbing piece of “journalism” thanks to this post at Game Politics. I do not want to waste the space to quote from McCullough’s piece and point out the numerous misrepresentations. As it is, Game Politics did an impressive job of restraining themselves and limiting their selections. Suffice it to say that McCullough has so many mistakes in his story that once they’re removed, there isn’t much of an article left.

What is of relevance to us here is that this individual is apparently outraged at some mature content in a videogame. So much so that he doesn’t look close enough to see that the game is clearly targeted to an audience of 17+ years and that the 30 second risque scene is less graphic than what appears on most mature television dramas these days.

I appreciate any attempts to help us parents make informed decisions about content to which our children should have access. However, when the discussion becomes slanderous and seems to encourage censorship I have to question the true motivation of the writer.

In our households, we still need to ”baby-proof” things. The thought of a razor blade left in one of the kids’ rooms sends shivers down our spines. But what McCullough did here was like trying to have the local pharmacy shut down because they sell razor blades in their shaving department. And, in his horror to realize this, he chose to call them nuclear-powered and said that they would kill on contact. (My father will roll his eyes when he reads this and say, “All analogies are suspect,” but I couldn’t help it.)

Here at Game Apparent we’ve said it before and we’ll be saying it for years to come. Not all games are for kids. This is one of the reasons that we decided to create this site. If there’s ever a question, you ALWAYS have resources at your disposal:

• Check the ESRB rating for the game.
• Post a question in our Forums.
• Email us directly - Chris or Ted.
• Visit our friends at Gamer Dad and search their site for a review.

We’re all in this together and as long as we have the proper tools, we can make informed decisions on behalf of our families.

[Read more →]

We mentioned some of our top game suggestions for this year in our last VodCast. We promised that we would follow-up with a longer list for each system to cover a wider range of games. This is the collection of those lists. Not all of these games are brand new, but almost all were released within the year. Please note the ESRB ratings for these games when you’re deciding what would be best for your family and feel free to comment below or chime in on the forums if you have questions about these titles. We’ll gladly get into more detail. (Chris can testify that I would easily talk anyone’s ear off about practically any of them. You should see how much editing he has to do on our videos. Once I get going…um…there I go again.)

Before I get sidetracked again, we present our lists. They are in ESRB rating order (lowest to highest) per system and alphabetical within the rating group. Enjoy!

(more…)

[Read more →]

The Scooby Game, Part 2:
For those of you who missed Part 1 or would like a refresher, you can find it here.

As noted previously, when a game is rated “E” for Everyone it is referring to the content. Let me qualify this, if I may. Since viewing a film is more passive, the rating is appropriate for all viewers because everyone who sees the film is capable of participating similarly based on their level of interpretation. (This is not to say that everyone walks away with the same experience.) However, with a videogame, you have the player and you have others who may view the game. Now if a game is rated “M” for Mature, I would infer that my four-year-old should neither play the game, nor watch someone else playing the game because of the content. Does that make sense? In contrast, a game that is rated “E” should have no objectionable content for practically anyone in the room to view. But that doesn’t mean that anyone can play the game. (Keep in mind that games rated “E” for Everyone are actually intended for ages 6 and older, not everyone as the rating implies. For more details, check out the ESRB ratings guide here.)

In the case of Scooby Doo! Night of 100 Frights I found nothing that was objectionable for my son to watch. However, playing the game requires a level of hand-eye coordination and patience that was far beyond my (then) three-year-old. In fact, as a seasoned gamer, there were a number of sequences in this game that truly frustrated me and required that I play them over and over until I accomplished the objective (and survived). Many more challenging games have such sequences and provide a sense of accomplishment for a veteran gamer. However, sequences like these can discourage and dishearten a younger and less-experienced player.

There are a few specific sequences in this title that hearken back to old arcade games or early 2D platformers where the only way that you can survive the sequence is through memorizing the patterns. Gamers 20 years ago thought that this was “fun” and it provided an opportunity for bragging rights. However, these days it can be a bit tiresome.

As I mentioned in the first part of this article, Scooby Doo! Night of 100 Frights is a hub-based game. This means that as you accomplish certain tasks and navigate particular areas, you then can return to the starting point. Usually, sucessfully navigating an entire area gives you the opportunity (thankfully) to unlock another linking point. This allows you to jump in at that point instead of having to go through the whole area again. In many cases, this saves time. In certain instances, it truly preserves sanity. I don’t mean to beat a dead horse. As I said before, overall the game is actually pretty good. It’s just those few areas that test whether or not you are committed to finishing the title.

In part one I mentioned the monster tokens. These are for the completist and are simply a novelty within the game. Acquiring them neither pushes the plot further nor helps in any way to finish the game. What they do offer is another opportunity to nurture the desire to collect things. It was this aspect of the game that really captured my son’s attention. He wasn’t as interested in the story or the plot line as much as seeing the different monsters in the areas and collecting the monster tokens. Once a token is acquired, it unlocks that creature in the monster gallery. There were entire 0ne-hour sessions during which all my son wanted to do was look at the statuesque representations of the monsters in this cavern showcase. This macabre trophy room became more important than any other aspect of the game. And it was his interest in this that got me thinking.

Whether it be Pokemon, Matchbox/Hot Wheels cars, or baseball cards, our culture encourages children to collect things. When I was a kid, I collected rocks and coins. As a young adult I began to collect comic books and videogames. The fact is that there is a big difference in collecting rocks as opposed to comics or baseball cards. Though there are rare gems and minerals, there are no lists that say, “only 1,000 gold nuggets were made.” Yet no matter what, when you want to fill a gap in your collection with a rare or limited item, it usually costs more and can become a bit of a thorn in your side until it’s acquired.

This concerns me. I see games that encourage this level of collecting (and we can trace this as far back as the original arcade version of PacMan) and I wonder what we’re “wiring” our kids brains to do. If my son becomes as obsessive about baseball cards as he was about those monster tokens, is he going to justify spending a thousand dollars on some single card one day to complete an historic team from his childhood? Should this be an issue for concern?

I don’t have answers. I have questions and concerns for my family. We all want what’s best for our children. And we want to help our kids navigate the challenges that life offers. Sometimes games (including sports, board games, and videogames) can offer the opportunity to role play and problem solve to enhance a skill-set for life. But they can provide the opportunity to learn other behaviors as well. Some of which may not serve our children’s best interest. All I can say is that as with all things, we parents must try to maintain open communication with our sons and daughters to better understand what they are learning and to help shape those lessons accordingly.

[Read more →]

The National Institute on Media and the Family issued its annual report card for the gaming industry yesterday. It noted a number of areas where the industry had regressed compared to advances made in previous years. You can download the report from this page on their site.

I believe that many of their observations are valid, but a few may be skewed. The most prevalent theme throughout the report is their concern with violent media. Though they recognize the maturation of the game-playing public in one sentence, they criticize the industry for making mature titles in another. The fact is that the violence in many of these games is less graphic than content in R-rated movies (which also are targeted to a 17+ year old demographic).

At one point toward the end of the report I found myself a little confused and I re-read a paragraph a few times to try to get my brain wrapped around the logic. Having not read the original book which they cited as research, I don’t know if this assertion is from NIMF or the researchers themselves. On page 14 in the second paragraph under the “Content” sub-heading of the “Research” section, the report cites the book, Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy. In this paragraph they state:

Yet, both children and college students were more aggressive to others after playing the aggressive game, even though it did not include what most parents would consider “violent” content. It is important to remember that aggression is typically defined as intentional harm to victims, and not by how graphic it looks.

Correct me if I’m wrong (and chime in below), but according to this, the children and college students intentionally harmed others after playing this game. They define aggression as intentionally harming victims after stating that they players were more aggressive to others after playing the game. Really?

I have no doubt that media can influence behavior and significantly impact the viewer/player. I believe that this is a given. I’ve laughed and cried during films. I have friends who have yelled at their televisions in disgust when characters in their favorite show behave ignorantly. I have witnessed smack talk and elevated emotional reactions during competitive videogame sessions as well. However, I have witnessed all of this behavior during any number of events including baseball games, debate tournaments, and live music concerts. The fact is that we are emotional creatures and we react to input - virtual and real. Our media merely extend our experiential realm. As parents, we need to make sure that our children’s experiences are appropriate for their level of maturity.

Having said that, in spite of any concern I have with specific observations within this report, I whole-heartedly agree with their conclusion which states:

[Read more →]

This brief article in the San Diego Union Tribune tells of a two-month undercover survey conducted by the National Institute on Media and Family. With the help of a number of youth organizations throughout the United States, they found that out of 60 stores nationwide, 47% sold “M” rated games to “teens younger than 18.”

First things first. If this means that these retailers are selling these games to 16-year-olds and under, then this is a problem that should be addressed. Retailers need to take a more active role in training their staff to properly identify whether or not their prospective customers are old enough to purchase said title. However, if this study is including 17-year-olds in this group, then we have a failure to communicate on a different level.

The ESRB rating “M” for Mature states that a game is intended for an audience who is 17+ years. By definition, these individuals may be minors (if they are not yet 18) and still be able to purchase the game. If this age seems an awkward cut-off point, keep in mind that it matches the age for entering an “R” rated movie without a parent or legal guardian.

Either way, retailers and parents need to be aware of the titles our children are buying and playing.

[Read more →]

Since the early days of the original PlayStation, the developer Naughty Dog has created some engaging virtual worlds. They began with the Crash Bandicoot titles (ESRB “E”) and continued on the PlayStation 2 with the Jak and Daxter series (ESRB “E” and “T”). Though the original Jak and Daxter followed the Crash Bandicoot lead as a kid-friendly 3D platformer, Jak II started to become darker. It was at this point that Naughty Dog began creating “T” titles. They are excellent games and well worth playing, but not as kid friendly as the original cartoon antics of a certain bandicoot.

Their latest game is as much of a leap in technology and presentation from the Jak and Daxter trilogy as Jak was from Crash. It is called Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune and it’s an adventure game in the vein of the Indiana Jones or Tomb Raider franchises. What appears to set this apart is the depth of the characters, the story, and the level of detail. In their previous productions, Naughty Dog took pride in painstakingly keyframing all of the animation. Though this makes for exceptionally fluid motion, it is better suited to stylized characters and not realistic human motion. For Uncharted they decided to start with motion capture to portray natural movement of the human characters. Then they refined this information be supplimenting it with traditional animation to create a more organic realism for the characters than motion capture could handle alone. This was an incredible undertaking considering that there is over an hour of these storytelling cinematics in the game.

In addition to the impressive cut-scenes, the in-game animation is stunning. Your onscreen persona, Nathan Drake, moves very naturally whether he is walking, running, jumping, or climbing through the environment. The control appears to be spot on as well, which is expected from a Naughty Dog title. Their titles are known for consistantly good gameplay and fun factor.

As of this week, the game’s demo is available free online at the PlayStation Store (North America). Feel free to download it and decide for yourself if it lives up to the hype. It is rated “T” and does include quite a bit of gun play. I would not call it brutal, nor is the hero of the title killing for any reason other than self-defense. Yet, the player is required to shoot quite a few of the “bad guys” throughout the game.

For more information about Uncharted: Drakes Fortune, visit the game’s official website here. For more background about the previous Naughty Dog titles and about the people behind the scenes, you can find their official website here.

[Read more →]