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 →]