I think we need to start a pool. $5 a square, proceeds to benefit ChildsPlay, on which day after Christmas there will be a news story in the mainstream media something like: "How is it possible that all those 11-16 year old kids got their hands on Call of Duty, an M rated game?".

I talk all about this game development stuff in my blog...

http://aboutmakinggames.blogspot.com/


Mac

Telling thing about the nine games for Girls, none of them are "Pinkware".

I find this survey interesting and what make it interesting is the fact it demonstrate the fact that console-base games have a limited appeal, that compared to games in the arcades where the appeal is universal. If anything it probably tells why the Japanese arcade scene is healthy.

So before a bunch of parents run out and get Modern Warfare 2 for their 'tweens', you think some news agency will report the fact that one of the levels has you gunning down cops and civilians in an airport with a bunch of terrorists?

Very interesting survey with a lot of food for thought.
I wonder whether we can also extrapolate that older gamers tend to prefer the Xbox (since sales for X360 and PS3 are overall comparable and younger players seem to be keener on the PS3 according to this survey), which in turn makes me wonder if those more story-based games for a mature audience like Heavy Rain and The Last Guardian are on the right platform (and they are actually the main reason why I'm considering buy a PS3 once they are out...)

Looks like Nintendo is in for a fantastic fourth quarter!

Being an avid player of the Call of Duty series, I personally cannot believe the parents that allow people to play these game. There are 5 year olds play an adult oriented game... where are these parents and the supervision?

I agree completely with Joe, what the hell are these parents doing? Are parents PARENTING anymore? This stuff boils my blood

If they've done their job properly then their children should know the difference between video games and real life and it shouldn't be a problem if they play violent games. Rambo was one of my favourite movies when I was in elementary school, and I don't think it's caused me any problems as an adult.

I notice something interesting regarding gender. While the boys tend to prefer games that have more mature content than their age, the girls prefer games that have ESRB ratings suitable for their age. This supports the theory that most girls, in general, prefer non-violence in their games.

Adam: "Rambo was one of my favourite movies when I was in elementary school, and I don't think it's caused me any problems as an adult. "

Rambo videogame was a cartoon, the videogames today look, feel and act real. I don't think it's appropriate for young children. If you want to let your children play them fine, but the ratings should be enforced. My opinion, of course.

Rambo the movie was a hyper-violent human massacre, and I believe that's what Adam was talking about.

Regardless, it should be a parent's decision whether or not their children can access mature games.

I'm not entirely surprised to see the 'blame the parents' mantra being repeated. But I'm curious how people continue to justify this approach, completely ignoring the broken parental warning ('rating') system we have.

How many games are refused rating or blocked on release because they contain a swastika or a brief clip of a naked breast? Yet MW2 can have a level where you shoot up an airport with a bunch of terrorists, and people only find out about it b/c someone got the game early and posted a clip of himself enthusiastically executing civilians and cops? There's no warning or concern about that?

How would a parent even know such a thing is in the game his child is begging for? Oh, I get it, they should buy the game (thus giving Infinity Ward a nice profit), play it all the way through, and then if they don't consider it appropriate just throw it away or resell it at a loss. And if they don't do all that, it's all the parent's fault! We are blameless!

I fully support the right of game developers to make games as they want, with the content they deem appropriate. I also fully understand the role of parents in the equation. But it's ridiculous for us to expect parents to know and see all. It's also ridiculous the way some people will abuse the freedoms they have, dragging us all down.

@Jeffrey Parsons -

I think it relies heavily on the parents, though it might be because the rating system is confusing. It says 'M' but does it mean 'R'? Parents understand the movie ratings, why can't they figure out the game ratings? How do we fix such a system when it is blatant ignorance of the parents in the first place?

I think the ESRB has done well with the system, the problem is the gaming industry just doesn't stick up for itself. The quote given by Activision helped a bit:

"Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense, realistic gameplay that mirrors real life conflicts, much like epic, action movies. It is appropriately rated 18 for violent scenes, which means it is intended for those who are 18 and older."

but then they went and gimped the system anyhow, putting up warning boxes and such before the scene.

When content like this gets put in, who goes to the media and tells parents they need to actually realize what 'M' means? Who tells them that the gaming industry is similar to the movie industry... there is content that is only for adults?

I think both parents and developers are at fault. Developers want to make strong 'M' games, but they are just too afraid to bluntly make parents aware (seeming their game sales will suffer). And parents are the problem for thinking gaming is for children, and ignore the labels.

However, despite developers hidden 'money grab' from kids, parents could still solve the problem all by themselves. That is why the parents should be the main point of blame. 'M' means NO KIDS... it's really not that hard to understand.

I definitely think that a big part of the problem lies with the ratings system. The common "Rated 'M' for Mature" quote at the beginning of trailers and such doesn't really mean all that much. I can easily imagine parents imagining that the "mature" rating reflects the difficulty or challenge of the game rather than any kind of objectionable content. After all, games are for kids, right? ;)

At the end of the day, I'm pretty such that obscure, erudite little black and white icons hidden away on a game box aren't really going to inform anyone, especially the parents that do not and have not got a desire to understand games beyond the fact that purchasing Violent Shooter X will make their kids happy and keep them quiet for a little while. There's a bit of give and take on both sides, methinks.

Well this also shows how darn strong the 1st Party Nintendo titles are! :-)