Text available online at http://timgolden.me.uk/games
Computer gaming is a huge industry, generating billions of pounds in this country and worldwide. Players range from 3-year-olds to the elderly. Devices for gaming can fit in the palm of your hand or need a small car to transport them. The gaming industry has driven the technology of sound and video faster than any equivalent level of technology. But how important is all this to parents?
I'm not a gamer myself. In a moment of serendipity, I was driving a few foreigners to Canterbury last summer to play the tourist, and there was an accident ahead which left us stuck on the M2 for nearly two hours. One of my passengers was a chap who works in Pamplona in northern Spain and who is involved in the Civertice project which is carrying out a huge research project involving surveying over 4,000 students in schools across Europe with respect to their use of digital and electronic leisure pursuits. They've not published their research yet, but there have been a few papers, and he kindly let me have a copy of the DVD they use for presentations of some of their data. Since I've actually lost the DVD, this talk isn't actually based on theirs, but I'm grateful to him nonetheless for getting me interested in the first place.
This talk will have 3 main parts: this introduction with the main points I want to make; a look at the good and bad points of computer games; and some practical suggestions and information as to selecting games.
Children are perfectly happy plunging into digital devices. Adults are usually less happy, even those who by virtue of their profession are technically competent. There is a combination of factors which contribute towards this gap, but perhaps the most significant are that youngsters have time on their hands to experiment and play around with new devices and concepts; and that they don't really care if something goes wrong. It probably won't be their mess to sort out. (Depending on the approach of their parents or teachers, of course).
The whole field of digitial devices and media is one where children are mostly ahead of their parents, at least in terms of confidence. This is a contrast to any more traditional skillset, where practice and skill would develop together. There might be a better disposition to start with, but with the exception of a few well-known areas, such as music and maths in which child prodigies appear, any moderately experienced adult would be expected to be ahead of an inexperienced child. Here, it is often the child who is experienced and confident. And by default that leaves their parents and teachers trailing behind.
While this is true of many aspects of the modern world: mobile phones, DVD & video recorders, anything with a remote control... computer games have an additional handicap as far as many adults are concerned. They're not really that interested. In USA Today in November 2004, a commentator noted:
“... [I]f you're over 35, chances are you view video games as, at best, an occasional distraction... If you're under 35, games are a major entertainment and a part of life. In that sense, they are similar to what rock'n'roll meant to boomers.”
While an obviously sweeping statement, anecdotally it does seem to be borne out. Not only are older men and women by-and-large imune to the allure of computer gaming, they're also less drawn to the related style of film-making which employs rapidly-cut and possibly confusing images.
Whatever the reason, the effect is that a certain mystique has made it difficult for some parents to get to grips with their children's use of the computer and in particular of computer games. That wouldn't matter too much if the children were just playing Scrabble and online hopscotch. But they're not.
[clip of American PSA showing an eight-year-old boy talking about shooting passers-by, setting an armoured policeman on fire because he was too difficult to shoot, and killing a prostitute. - http://www.mediafamily.org/mediawise/psa.shtml]
People like to have answers. When violent or sexually-related crime happens, it suits the media nicely if there is a ready-made scapegoat in the form of a video nasty, whether a game or a film. The proponents of video games and other interested parties are quite vociferous in their defence, and claim that in none of a series of well-publicised cases can a violent game be considered a true culprit.
[VSC interview defending videogame violence]
Of the thousands of games on the market, a very few would be considered clearly unsuitable, and of those fewer still are held up as scapegoats for crime. Is this something we should be worrying about?
There are serious studies [pdf] which point to some connection between violent games and violence in individuals and calls from international organisations for an end to computer game violence. At least one large retail chain has been cautious and refused to sell one such game. But the defenders of video games warn against a knee-jerk reaction to tragic violence where computer games appear to have been influential. There are studies which point to beneficial effects of games in certain medical situations or where children need to be distracted. But are these merely making the best of a bad job? What are we to believe?
Both the defenders and the opponents of violent games are to some extent missing the point. (At least, they're missing my point). Their driving ethic is what might grandiloquently be called utilitarian consequentialism. They're effectively posing the question: if my child plays this game, what will happen in the future as a direct result which is materially harmful to themselves or to someone else? This must be proven by some demonstrable scientific method. Either: the clear majority of all people we tested who played game x went out and did bad thing y; or: playing game x caused an increase in chemical y; chemical y is known to be involved in bad behaviour z. I doubt if anyone doing such studies is attempting to trivialise a complex matter, but certainly the presentation such studies receive in mainstream media is expecting a black-and-white case, with a yes-or-no answer. But we're talking about people. And people are more complex than that.
Not only that, but studies can only go so far: it's difficult to get true figures especially in an area where some judicious lying would probably put a better face on things. One of the studies for example showed a clear difference in the response to the question: “Do the parents of these children check the game rating before buying?” A small majority of the parents said “yes”; the vast majority of the children said “no”. Likewise, anecdotal evidence from the Civertice study suggests that most parents underplayed the presence of a screen of some sort in their children's bedroom. In addition, respondents in a survey asking about their – possibly violent -- reaction to such and such a game may not in fact appreciate just what their reactions are to certain stimuli.
Clearly survey merchants must be at least aware of such points as anyone else. The difference is, though, that they have to take what they can get while as parents and educators, we can observe the youngsters' actions and reactions at first hand.
Centrally, then: there may or there may not be a correlative or causal link between a particular game and the undesirable behaviour of a particular youngster. The most important question, though, is this: are the attitudes and actions which this game promotes those about which I, as a parent, as an educator, am happy or am unhappy?
A second question: is playing this game a constructive use of my children's time? There may or may not be a relationship between excessive computer game playing and poor academic performance, but we want the children for whom we are responsible to be responsible for their own time.
Those of us who are parents, carers or educators of children want to have some say in the ideals which are presented to those children in our care, especially on our own home ground.
I could stop now because this point is the most important one I will make today. I – as someone responsible for children – have the duty to know what time they are spending on computer games, and who is saying what to them through those games. This session is designed to help those of us who are responsible for children to make informed decisions about the computer games they play. It's also to remove some of the mystique that surrounds a style of digital interaction which may be far removed from our own experience and inclinations.
Let's take a look at the various pros & cons of computer game playing. It's clear, and we'll touch on this later, that a certain amount of these points could be made about any media-viewing, indeed about any activity. But they do still apply to computer gaming and to some extent may be altered by the differences which gaming brings.
OK, we'll get the worst stuff over with first: the ugly.
This is clearly the number-one concern which parents, educators and in its sensationalist way, the mass media have about computer games. Let's take a look at a couple of fairly notorious scenarios: Grand Theft Auto and The Sims.
[video of GTA showing gangland-style shootings, underwear-clad dancing girls and car chases] RockStar games seems to make a living from the most notorious, if well-crafted, games on the market. They're responsible for GTA, Bully (renamed in the UK as “Canis canem edit” for reasons which elude me, unless it was simply to avoid the notoriety that had gone before), and Manhunt to name three alone. The latter two were taken off the shelves of Dixons and PC World after some bad publicity, while the first aroused great controversy not merely for its sleazy backdrop and violent milieu but also for the infamous Hot Coffee mod which unlocked a minigame already present in the published game involving some fairly raunchy sex scenes. A defender of Rockstar games' sleazy and violent traits claims that:
“Put simply, Manhunt is a demonstration both for the immaturity of the industry to properly defend titles which don’t tow the line in what’s considered ‘acceptable’, and also the clearest example yet of a clueless media having little understanding of a medium that mainstream society is out of touch with. To demonise what we don’t know is a natural trait inherent within common culture, so potential dangerous influences can be controlled or manipulated.”
A more general defence of violence turns on its cathartic possibilities where naturally-aggressive gamers can rid themselves of their violent impulses vicariously instead of taking them out on society. Interestingly, there doesn't seem to have been any research on the effects on players of the sexualisation of characters and surroundings, but I suspect that any such research would be hard to achieve and doubtful in its findings: asking teenage gamers questions involving their sexual urges before and after a game is unlikely to bear much truth.
[video of Sims showing men & women avatars interacting with each other in several scenarios, including getting into a small pool together] Sims, which – depending on whose figures you're taking – is one of the biggest-selling game series on the market. (The ESA has it at numbers 2 and 3 for 2005 by units sold). It pretty much defines the simulator game segment, giving the user control over the actions, appearance and traits of one or more characters, each of which has a life of its own and will react in predefined but quite varied ways, depending on the attributes you apply to it. It comes across as a sort of electronic “playing houses”. And, indeed, the PEGI rating for the original game is 7+. But let's hear from an anonymous reviewer on amazon.co.uk. (Spelling & grammar not adjusted!)
I have about 4 family's which i made myself in veronaville who are mostly all cheating on each other and because most of them have the romance aspiration they get loads of points for having woohoo's with 3 different people etc. It has turned into an X-rated soap opera which i have control over. Heres an example of what kind of things happen. There are 2 men 2 women, they are all married. i shall call them man1, man2, woman1 and woman2. The 2 men get to know each other and then get into a loving relationship. The same happens with the 2 women. Woman 1 and woman 2 have a woohoo together after lots of making out on the sofa and the men hear the woohoo going on and catch them cheating. Later on both the men have a woohoo and the women catch them cheating. Much more happens but I can't be bothered to type it all but its a helluva lot of fun! Also this game shouldn't be a 7 plus because you can beat up or slap or shove or poke etc the people who you don't like which doesn't really set a very good example
While Sims2 is still 7+ some of the addon packs Later versions of the game and add-on packs are rated higher at 12+.
A very active segment of the computer game market – and perhaps the one with the most computer-processing effort -- is dedicated to war-style games. We'll be seeing a couple of examples later, but they generally include fairly realistic violence, often quite gruesome comeuppances and... they're often hit-and-run. You're employed by the mafiosi to take someone out. So you do that, and then you're given another mission. Going back to GTA for a moment, you're pretty much encouraged to beat up innocent bystanders (and trash brothels or whatever). There's no nobility in the actions; it's merely murderous violence. Violence is not a necessary but unfortunate means to an end. In some cases, it is the end, the aim of the game, the thing for which you are rewarded.
Another aspect of no few games is that female characters are set up at least partly as sex objects, even if they're taking live roles. You may have seen the articles in the news a couple of weeks ago about the effects on young girls of over-sexualisation of women in the media. Duke Nukem 3D a few years ago courted controversy when it was pointed out that one stage of the gameplay went through a red-light district and you could gun down streetwalkers or shoot women hostages. Its defenders pointed out that, in the points scheme of that game, it was disadvantageous to shoot them, but...
This is, if anything, the greater complaint about computer games. They're really easy to get lost in. That's partly because the allow for much greater complexity and realism in the gameplay, so the player's faculties are drawn in much more. Also because more senses are active than in traditional indoor gameplay, even though the body itself – Wii notwithstanding – is more passive.
There's a concept in business called the Sunk-cost fallacy, which suggests that people will continue a possibly hopeless task so as not to waste the resources they've previously committed to it. The obvious context of this is money, and gambling in particular, but it can apply also to gaming of any sort, and especially to computer gaming where the computer can keep track of a whole set of variable resources allocated to you and their use according to your actions within a game. Not only that but, if you were to return to a game which you had frozen in order, say, to have dinner, you'd have to bring your mind back to the point it was at before the suspension. Which won't be easy, and could be costly – at least in terms of the game. So you resist the interruption.
Much is said these days about children and their attention span. It could be argued that the fact that they can concentrate on a moderately complex piece of gameplay for even hours at a time is to their credit in this regard; or it could be pointed out that the computer is doing most of the “concentrating” and all they have to do is follow fast-moving images... which is what they're good at.
This is a bit of kicker, and falls into the same category as the outside-parental-control we spoke about earlier. Basically, youngsters – boys more than girls, I think – are very much at home on line. And their approach to things is often, to say the least, amoral. As a youth leader I've sat in the back of countless minibus trips chatting to the boys and listening to their chatter. And one thing's quite clear – if someone says: “here's something which will let you download stuff for free”, they'll take it without asking any questions. And we're not talking about lads who would generally be considered troublemakers.
So where can you get computer games from? Well, obviously, a computer game shop, either something specific like GAME or GameStation or a general computer shop. In that situation, there's a physical box, the assistant should be in a position to assess the age of the buyer and parents can be there too.
But you can also get games on-line, both legitimately and otherwise. Limewire is currently the peer-to-peer flavour of the month, but there have been and will be other channels. You can rent games from Blockbuster and – increasingly – from the local library. (You can play them there, too). You can get games from Magazine cover discs. Although those are likely to be demos or cutdown versions, they still have to be rated by BBFC... and BBFC lately gave one PC Gamer cover disc an 18 rating.
Finally, of course, you can swap them in the playground. Even that might be legit or otherwise; it may just be that someone's tired of a game and is handing it over. Or it may be that a CD-copier has been at work and that we're looking at a pirate copy. 1UP has an article referring to a study by Macrovision – who have a vested interest – which suggested that nearly a quarter of players used pirated games. (I've no idea how they obtained that information: would you own up, even in a supposedly anonymous survey?).
One thing to be especially aware of as parents is that media companies are becoming more and more strident in their efforts to crack down on illegal copying. Viacom recently sent letters to thousands of YouTube users claiming infringement of copyright. There have also been highly-publicised cases (which I can't find links for) in the past few years of parents being sued for their children's illegal downloads. This touches on a wider issue of internet use which we won't cover in this talk.
Some websites make a token gesture when it comes to viewing games and trailers intended for an older audience: they require you to enter your date of birth. Presumably this offers some kind of legal defence, but obviously it's not going to deter a 12-year-old who wants to see something rated 15!
This is something of a chimera. One hears all sorts of stories about people who play themselves to death and others who take real-world revenge for virtual-world actions. That said, I had one colleague – a contractor, who spent weeks and months living out of hotel rooms -- who got into WoW from the start and really has ended up far too involved, affecting his marriage and his social life.
The issue of what game analyst Jane McGonigal calls Pervasiveness [pdf] can be rather sinister. Marketing techniques can try to blur the distinction between real and virtual life, as they did, for example, with the Blair Witch films. I'm not aware of any serious studies of pervasive gaming effects on youth.
As with any online activity, online gaming has its dangers. Note that many online games, especially the fighting and MMORPGs involve concepts of team talk and person-to-person chat. These can be just textual, like Instant Messaging, or VOIP involving headsets and so on. As usual, there's no way of knowing who the other person really is and any real-life meetups between players in a WoW guild should be viewed with caution by parents. There isn't necessarily a problem: all the people involved might be in the same class at school.
In an online interview, a representative of ELPSA the UK gaming industry body, made this point, but pointed out that such online channels are monitored. I've not seen reference to this elsewhere.
This was mostly covered earlier, but I want to put a bit of a positive spin on it here. In short, the problem is that kids are way ahead of – or at least way away from – their parents when it comes to the online world in general and gaming in particular. Obviously some parents make commendable efforts to exert a degree of control or supervision over their children's online activities, perhaps by some sort of filter or firewall. I know of one case where this backfired somewhat, and the lad in question came to me quite aggrieved because his mother had banned him from the internet because of some webpage which their filter claimed had been visited. He claimed he hadn't gone there, and it was probably a popup. He was asking me whether it would be right for him to go to a cybercafe to go on the web there!
I told him not to, not least because it would break the trust he had with his parents. But that works two ways: parents need to trust their children's word as far as they possibly can. And this is important, I think – there has to be a degree of trust involved with older children, even when parents are understandably worried about online content and the hours devoted to it.
This is perhaps one of the more typical reasons given for avoiding computer games, at least handheld ones: it's rather divisive – dividing those people who are playing from those who aren't. Again, this is a bit two-handed. There's a certain amount of socialisation to be had from onlooking and kibitzing
For what it's worth we have a policy here at Westpark which is generally but not rigidly applied: no games or phones or iPods during club hours. We relaxed that, for example, when the Nintendo DS was just out and a couple of the lads brought theirs along eagerly to show everyone else and play against each other. We had a session with them, and then put them away.
There have been concerns expressed over more directly health-related issues. Computers, like all modern equipment, generate electromagnetic fields whose effect is by-and-large unknown. In addition they're almost certainly coated with flame-retardant chemicals. Neither of these would be a problem as such; but they might become so if someone is hunched over a console day and night.
This is not to be sneezed at. As such, there's no problem with playing computer games any more than any other games, if well-chosen and in moderation.
This is obviously related to the previous point about computer games being an adequate means of entertainment in suitable doses. The point here is that, especially for younger children, well-chosen games might be a better filler than inocuous cartoons or classic singalongs. There's a good number and a fair variety of games available for the younger age group. Anecdotally, I heard of one child whose father was keen on the educational value of computer games and believes that his daughter's maths are significantly in advance of her (young) age as a result.
NB This isn't just a question of reaching for good things to say about computer games. Depending on the circumstances their benefits can be clearly seen.
One of the most oft-quoted justifications for computer gaming is that it improves hand-eye coordination. I'm not convinced that this is of such tremendous benefit to mankind, and certainly not over the more physical possibilities which exist at least in countries whose weather permits them. But maybe the Wii will prove me wrong on that point.
The more obvious contender for faculty-improvement is in fact thinking, along with strategy and tactics. Of course chess is the usual exemplar in this field – physical or online – but many games require tactical thinking, although possibly coupled with mindless violence. You're arguably less likely to get a chance to lead an assault team through enemy territory in real life with the attendant dangers, although there are such things as paintball etc.
Finally, of course, in the learning stakes are online quizzes and their like. I've never felt strongly that one actually learns anything from a quiz, but maybe I'm in the minority.
As mentioned earlier, some playing situations can be quite social. It's a bit of an open question as to whether three or four people playing each other in the same room , as you do with most handhelds, constitutes social interaction or nor, since by and large, they're still concentrating on what's happening on the screen in front of them, only partly conscious that one or more of the other players represents someone else in the same room. That said, it's obviously no worse than if the other whether single-player with spectators / kibitzers or team game.
As with any online communication, playing a game is a way of keeping in touch with someone not present. It's like a faster version of chess-by-letter which some people still indulge in. With their latest Xbox 360, Microsoft brought effectively seamless online play to the world of computer gaming. This has made it as easy to set up an online game as a social phenomenon as it was for our grandparents to invite people round for a game of cards.
One mother commented the first time I gave this talk that she had definitely encountered the situation where her (8 or so) youngish children were gathered round watching one of them play and agog as his success or failure. And it wasn't just that they were waiting for their own turn either!
A couple of things worth noting in this area. I've heard, although I've not seen it myself, that while the Wii currently has limited online playing facilities, you can send your Miis – your online avatars – to be spectators in other people's games. Which I think is rather civilised.
Finally, an interesting example of social multiplayer gameplay was highlighted at a Swedish University. The students developed a multiplayer version of Pacman using a conventional handheld device. There were some differences in the game, but the most important thing was that, when your player ran off your screen it appeared on someone else's and so you had to get physical access to the other person's screen to progress your character's game. Which led to much hilarity as people ran around the lab trying to hide their devices from other people! A similar experiment seems to have occurred at the University of Lancaster denoted Human Pacman.
We noted earlier that there is a danger when youngsters interact online. There's no way of knowing who the people really are you're talking to. But there is a positive side to that. Children who would be scorned in the playground because of their size, shape, sex, colour etc. can perfectly well join in online, hidden behind their avatar.
This can even give severely physically disabled people an opportunity for vicariously energetic activity.
The point was made earlier that a gap often exists between parent and child when it comes to the digital world. But a game is a game, and there's no reason why, other things being equal, parents shouldn't play alongside or against their children. The ESA suggests that 35% of American parents play computer games, 80% of those with their children, and 60% of those 35% felt the family had come closer together. Those figures need perhaps to be taken with a grain of salt, as the ESA figures consistently maintain high levels of don't-worry figures when it comes to gaming.
One example given me was a father who played WoW with his two sons. One of the sons, who was, I think, six or seven, had some difficulty concentrating in general. The father took advantage of the gameplay which was very attractive to the lad, to keep his attention focused on what needed to be done and saw the whole exercise as very beneficial.
Several reports have come out which point out the value of computer games both as a learning medium, since children and young people learn much more readily when they're enjoying themselves, and as a means of legitimate distraction when, for example, a serious injury needed to be healed. Without any attractive alternative, the children in question tended to pick at scabs or scratch wounds and so on. The computer games acted as a mild medium-term anaesthetic.
Finally, and by no means least in the list of benefits which computer games offer, is the creative possibilities inherent in making a computer game. Today's computer games are the result of many many hours of dedicated time and attention, with the input of creative artists, programmers, sound engineers, musicians, story writers, and testers. Certainly, some are more creative than others, and in some cases you perhaps wish they'd directed their creative energy to a more noble end-product. But no-one can deny the craftmanship that goes into many of today's game.
If someone's interested in learning to use a computer as a creative tool, and not just as a toy, then programming a game is an appealing starting point. There are numerous toolkits out there for the novice developer, ranging from simple tick-the-box generators to mainstream languages with graphics toolkits. My own language of choice, Python, is used both by ILM and by Sony in the film-creation pipeline, and there are online 48-hour contests and other incentives to get creating. One holiday activity aimed directly at youngsters is the LiveWires workshop.
And it's not just graphics either. Sound effects and background music play a critical role in the feel of a game. A recent Gaming trade show had masterclasses in shading techniques, characters animation, and physics. Today's gamers are demanding.
Possibly not. Chess was banned for a while in our VIth Form as it was becoming too absorbing. Every study period saw groups of people huddled round boards, either playing or kibitzing. In general, responsible parents are concerned about all sorts of influences on their children. Films, books, TV, magazines, comics. To some extent video games are a convenient Aunt Sally.
But there is the difference we noted earlier: from book to film to computer game, each step involves more of the person's senses and faculties, involves increasing levels of involvement, of commitment to the subcreation. Try pulling the plug out or covering the screen when someone's playing a game, as opposed to when they're reading a book, and see what reaction you get.
When I was preparing this talk, my older sister pointed out the effect it has on her when she sees one of those 1950s films with the women dressed glamorously. She would leave the cinema (or the living room) feeling as though she were dressed like that herself. In contrast, her husband was playing Carmageddon, incidentally the first computer game to rate an 18 certificate. The effect of that was that, driving around Hampshire, he felt that somehow he should be knocking over random pedestrians to win more points.
Sony were the first company to realise that the teenagers of the previous decade had now grown up and got money, and could afford a beefed-up console, with games to suit. The PlayStation was born, then superseded by the PlayStation2. Most recently, the unimaginatively entitled PlayStation3 looks to be overpriced, underpowered and undersupplied.
Meanwhile, in spite of Sony's attempts with the PSP, Nintendo – creators of the once-ubiquitous GameBoy -- remain master of the handheld market. And they've recently redefined the gaming world again with the Wii. Their Gamecube is still in evidence, as are their several flavours of handheld: including the the DS and Gameboy Advance.
Microsoft were a late entry with the Xbox which did only modestly at first, but they timed things right with the Xbox 360 which got in ahead of the opposition's new-generation offerings. And in particular they've hit the jackpot with their Live Play concept making online play seamless and attractive.
PC is still for some people best gaming box. PC hardware (especially graphics & sound) had been driven by the gaming & entertainment market for years, some say too much. Advantage: only need one box; disadvantage: can't check your email at the same time.
In short: don't be afraid to take an interest. But “choosing” a game for a youngster, least of all a teenager is unlikely to succeed. Magazine reviewers complain constantly that a stylish, thoughtful and well-crafted new game which they all recommend gets no sales at all, while a crowd-pleasing shoot'em up with no original content just falls off the shelves. Teenagers in particular are rarely driven by quality or logic, and often far more by fashion. Your best bet as a parent is to be, if you'll forgive the pun, ahead of the game.
Many sites have screenshots, write-ups, trailers, and example gameplay. You'll need a fairly hefty internet pipe for most things, though. Which is why it might be worth looking at games magazine cover discs which are likely to feature demos and trailers.
There are also review and recommendation sites, both general-purpose and also specifically aimed at parents. Try to get a feed from these sites it possible; that way you can follow new releases with the minimum of fuss.
http://www.mediafamily.org/kidscore/
http://www.parentpreviews.com/video_games.shtml
http://www.familymediaguide.com/media/videogames.html
(coming soon): http://goodgameguide.org
In the UK, there is a two-level classification system. At one level, there is a voluntary system following the Europe-wide PEGI ratings which allow the game manufacturer to self-classify a game in two ways. Categories of doubtful content: Language, Discrimination, Sex, Fear, Drugs, Violence, Gambling. And ages: 3 / 7 / 12 / 14 / 16. At the second level, a game can be classified by the BBFC like any video media. This need only happen when the game has sexual or violent content and/or is of a near-video quality.
The PEGI rating is toothless, legally. It's an indication, nothing more. The BBFC rating, though, puts the retailer at risk of a £5,000 fine or six months in prison if a higher-rated game is sold to a minor. One slight uncertainty is that the game manufacturer and not the BBFC itself, decides whether the game will need certification. As a rule, any game which is PEGI-rated at 16+ will need a BBFC rating.
Game cases must be clearly marked with the PEGI rating the or the BBFC rating if it applies. As adults or educators, we should be familiar with the different PEGI symbols and their meanings. The age-ranges are clear enough although...
The BBFC has an RSS feed for its ruling on games. It doesn't, unfortunately, give too much information about exactly what caused the particular rating to apply. In addition, once a game has a BBFC rating, its PEGI rating is not displayed, which actually gives you less information about a more dangerous game!
As we saw earlier, kids are experts are downloading things, and aren't too fussed about the rights and wrongs of it either. In particular, mods are alterations to an existing program, either unlocking some possibility already latent in the code, or adding new functionality. Some mods are official, released or at least condoned by the game's manufacturer. Others are unofficial and may even be frowned on.
The two most famous, or infamous, are GTA's Hot Coffee mod, and the Sims Nude mods. The former unlocked existing minigame which involved some rather raunchy sex scenes. The latter allows the Sims to be completely undressed, even though you only see what you'd get if you undressed Barbie or Action Man. Apparently.
Mods are not, of themselves, a bad thing. But they are often freely available, with only the merest “Enter your date of birth” safeguards.
When I was being shown round a family-run bodega near Barbastro in northern Spain a couple of summers ago, a lad of 11 or 12 ran up to where we were being shown round by the woman who was the present owner. He waited for a suitable gap and said “Can I have the key, please, Mum?”. She asked him if he'd finished his chores and when he said he had she said “Just one hour, then,” and gave him a key. She then explained to us that her son would be the next owner of the family business and that she was teaching him the trade, as it were, and that he could only play on his console for some limited time each day.
How you arrange things is down to your family dynamic and parenting style. Having a games console in a bedroom means it's a much greater distraction if that's the same place in which homework is done. Any modern console you buy, and a PC is the same, has the capacity to be a TV, a web browser, a DVD player. And a games console. If it's hidden away, you don't know what your children are watching, and you don't know for how long. But that's down to you as parents and your knowledge of your own children.
Computer gaming is hugely appealing to a lot of children, and while many adults also play, many are alienated by the games and their milieu. Certain high-profile games offer aspects which will worry parents, but it's not a question of waiting for some study to prove a link between games and unsocial behaviour. Rather, it's for parent and educators to decide what it and isn't acceptable in games as in anything else. There are many positive aspects of games and while youngsters are far more at home in the world of digital media, parents and responsible adults need to be aware of what's out there and how it might affect their children.
Well it depends on what you call “good”. But understanding that to mean: more than merely mindless shooters or inane visual quests, then there certainly are some. The handhelds (the Nintendo DS & the PSP) are particularly apt for things like travel puzzles which are, at least, no worse than those books of word searches and kiddy-quizzes. Try Nintendo's Brain Games, for example. Or one of the Football Manager simulations.
The UN has released some simulation-style games intended to heighten awareness of the the plight of other people. Food Force has you attempting to bring basic supplies to drought-stricken countries. Another game – which I can't track down a single reference to – has you organising refugees from an Eastern European country. It's called something like “Last Flight Out”.
FPS/3PS: Half-Life - CounterStrike - Halo - WWII Shooters (Call of Duty)
Most of Nintendo's output - Mario – Sonic – Metroids v. good 3D
Tetris - Championship Manager - Typical free games – Most film tie-ins
Lego Star Wars - Zelda – GTA
Horror - Alone in the Dark - Resident Evil
Offline: Oblivion
Online: MMORPG Wow, Lotr
Civilisation - Total War – Risk-type (Galcon)
Sims, Nitendogz, Horsez
Football, Gold, Soccer, Pippa Funnell Stud Farm
Racing: F1, Rally, Bike
Kung-fu warrior - WWE