Congrats to Andrew and co (is there a co?) for getting this back up and going. Good site - I hope you do well and spawn imitators (or at least more recognition of this kind of stuff in mainstream gaming press).
Not a personal plug - I don’t know Andrew other than one interview from a few years back. But it is a good site - check it out.
Yeah, there’s an “and co.” there. I write a mostly weekly hardcore gamer column (that I just happened to not get done this week) for the site and I’m also the copy editor now. I do reviews and previews as games and time permits. My review of TimeSplitters Future Perfect is over there as of Wednesday.
Thanks for the compliments. I know Andrew appreciates it and so do I. Keep an eye on the news there. The guy we have doing some offbeat news stuff finds some cool stuff. He had those Pac-Man hats posted before I saw them anywhere else.
The rest of the writers are very capable and we try to make sure we cover all the games parents would be wondering about. You’d be surprised how often the ESRB ratings are off the mark.
That’s what happens when people actually play the games before they rate them.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s pretty much the idea. We’ve hit on a few really egregious things in certain games that you wouldn’t expect. The one that stands out for me is R-Type Final where it’s pretty clear a man and woman are “coupling” in the background of the final stage (as silhouettes at least). The game is rated E - Everyone.
I think someone forgot to mention that to the ESRB.
Most things aren’t that bad, but we at least let you know what’s in an M or T rated game that might be objectionable in more specific terms than you get on the back of the box so you can decide for yourselves what’s tolerable for your kids. We’re just trying to give more info along with a rather standard game review.
That’s a key. If you just want good reviews of games, there are published writers like myself, Bub, Bernie Dy and others writing for the site. We review the games just as we would for a CGM, CGW or console mag. The only difference is the added “Kid Factor” at the bottom. The rest of the review is standard stuff with a five star scale for rating. So regular Joes shouldn’t think it’s a site only for parents or kids or whatever. It’s tough to get people to understand that, unfortunately. They see the site’s name and think they’re not welcome unless they’re a Dad (or Mom) and that’s just not the way it’s structured. It helps, but anyone can read it and get a lot out of it.
Anyway, thanks again. It’s good to know people are reading!
GamerDad’s one of my daily stops. My only complaint about the new format is that the age suggestions say something like “Approved by the GamerDad Authority 6+” which, while it means suitable for those over 6, actually sounds like they’re approving of the game (especially since it’s similar to their old format approval thing). When you read the review, you find out that the game is horrible.
Er… some background silhouette of a coupling couple is explicit and harmful… how? I know this is a tired old argument and views differ and all that, but this seems pretty mild for a “really egregious thing”. Maybe it wasn’t a question of the ESBR board not knowing about it, maybe they (like I) just didn’t think it was a big deal?
“Everyone” includes 5 year olds. I know European mores are a tad different, but I’d prefer to keep depictions of sex acts, even silhouettes of such acts, from my daughter until she’s, say, 10 or so.[/quote]
10! You old-fashioned guy, you. Surely 8 is OK now.
Are there countries in this world where kids get their sex education before ten years of age and can process what it all means? Yes, a silhouette has to receive the same explanation when a kid asks “what are they doing?” just as any other scene that depicts the beautiful act of making love (as my wife and I call it). I do not think kids are remotely ready for that sort of imagery in their single digit years.