Poll: Is it just me, or are age recommendations getting harsher?

[Zyntoxic]

This day I had my 5 year old nephew over for the evening, and he really loves games.
He hasn't played much since he has only been allowed to play a few Gameboy games and his mothers are really strict with the age recommendations so he is only allowed to play the PEGI 3 games.
But since he loves games so much I figured I should be able to find something on either my 360 or PS3 that was rated as a PEGI 3 rated game.

It was nearly impossible...

First I thought of the lego games but they are PEGI 7, so I thought "ok, but Rayman 3 is available as an HD version on Xbox Live, the old version was PEGI 3 rated" apparently HD makes it less age appropriate, Rayman 3 HD has PEGI 7.
I then decided to thoroughly look through every game on on Xbox Live, with two criteria: PEGI 3 and the possibility to play two at the same time, since he said he would like us to play together.
I found 2 games...
Happy feet 2 and Undergarden

I just feel it's kind of sad that there are so few quality games for the young, and at the same time I feel perplexed over the Rayman game and I remember getting the game Heart of Darkness in my cereals when I was a kid, and this had a PEGI of 3:



But the Lego games on the other hand that animates "death" with a Lego figure exploding into smaller pieces of plastic Lego but is rendered in 3D has PEGI 7 rating.


Is it just me imagining things, or are the PEGI ratings getting harsher? and what do you think can be done to make more good age appropriate games aside from Super Mario?

EDIT: some things lost in translation

 

[sextus the crazy]

This day I had my 5 year old niece over for the evening, and he really loves games.

Err... I think the word "nephew" is what you were thinking of.

OT: I'm not European and therefore, not as familiar with the PEGI system of ratings (I guess they're comparable to the ESRB ratings us 'murricans get), but I think conservative ratings are the norm. I honestly would never use them a strict guideline as much as I would use it as a suggestion. If your nephew is 5, I'd say most PEGI 7 games are appropriate. In the states all kid-friendy games are rated E (ages 7+) (stuff like mario, and such). The only ones the get 3+ age rating are educational games (for kids who aren't good at reading, technology and such). In all honesty, check out what games the kid wants or you might think he wants; watch trailers and gameplay videos (and reviews of course) and then go from there.

also, this: moviebob's old video on parents buying games.

 

[Rose and Thorn]

Isn't 5 a really young age to play videogames? I didn't start playing videogames till around maybe 7-8 and even then I still had no idea how to beat Orcarina of time...maybe I was just a stupid kid.

I guess videogames aren't made for little kids because there isn't much money to be made there. Most parents will think that is too young to play videogames and most kids won't understand videogames at that age unless they are super easy.

Small kids should go outside and play for a little why before they get old enough to shut themselves in their room all day with the sega or N64...the good ole days.

 

[Confidingtripod]

my immediate thought: games shouldnt be for kids as they have really strong imaginations and can make their own up with just about anything (I remember having a very complex game involving video-tape cases in combo with toys) but the rating system itself is always a little harsher than neccicary, its so your to blame if the kid does something stupid rather than the entertainment

 

[Savagezion]

I was playing at 5 myself. You may consider getting a SNES. It is a great system for young people and most all games on the system are appropriate for ages 5-10

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

The worst example I can think of is Sonic Rush Adventure initially getting a PEGI 12. They re-rated I think, but why on Earth was it a 12 in the first place?!

 

[Tanis]

Isn't 5 a really young age to play videogames? I didn't start playing videogames till around maybe 7-8 and even then I still had no idea how to beat Orcarina of time...maybe I was just a stupid kid.
I guess videogames aren't made for little kids because there isn't much money to be made there. Most parents will think that is too young to play videogames and most kids won't understand videogames at that age unless they are super easy.
Small kids should go outside and play for a little why before they get old enough to shut themselves in their room all day with the sega or N64...the good ole days.

What planet do you live on?
*raspberry*

I started playing around 4 or 5.

Only child, getting all those hand-me-downs.

 

[krazykidd]

"Quality games for the young". Haha funny man . Firstly , children have absolutely no standard for quality . More often than not as long as there is a character they reconize they will enjoy the game . Think of all the shows/games you played/loved as a child , not sure you would find them of quality. Which brings me to me second point. Just because you ( an adult )think a game looks dull/boring doesn't mean a child would . You are holding the game up to your standard rather than looking at it through the kids eyes . Thirdly , developpers don't have any motivation to make "quality childrens games " because children have no money and don't buy games on their own . They aren't really a target democraphic for any dveloppers , and it makes sense . Why spends years developping a game for a 5 year old ? It makes no sense , and would cost way too much , and they would not turn a profit that way , especially since kinds don't really care/know anything about quality , other than what adults tell them .

 

[shrekfan246]

I played a lot of what I guess would be considered "Edutainment" games when I was around that age, games which today would honestly be looked down upon and scoffed at. But I had loads of fun with them. I also played games like Sonic the Hedgehog, but that's beside the point...

Personally, I think the PEGI 7 games would still be perfectly suitable for someone under that age. I can understand how people would interpret the system otherwise, but aside from things like Mario jumping on a Goomba's head and making it fall off the screen, there's nothing inherently gruesome about any of those titles (as far as I know).

I don't think it's the rating system that's getting harsher, though. I think it's just that there aren't as many developers/publishers creating games with children in mind anymore. Nintendo is pretty much the only one, and if your nephew's parents are as strict on the age system as you say, then even that would be ruled out. Most games are aimed at the teenage-young adult demographic right now. And for a pretty good reason, too, when you consider how many people in said demographic will lambast Nintendo for daring to reveal a title that's kid-friendly.

 

[lacktheknack]

That young of an age? Yes, it's getting stricter.

Up in the more commonly noted teenaged-to-mature transition? Not so much. If anything, it's getting LESS strict (can you imagine Batman: Arkham City being rated T a mere five years ago with that fight with Solomon Grundy in it?).

 

[likalaruku]

I've never met anyone under the age of 8 I considered to be capable of coherent thought. They walk in on you watching a guy with a knife chasing a topless girl, they stare a few minutes, they get distracted by a penny, then they get distracted by the cat. You give them a puzzle & they try to force pieces to fit & kick the puzzle onto the floor when it doesn't bend to their will.

 

[viranimus]

I think it is accurate.

Its just another example of the continuing and never ending push to coddle children, prevent and shelter them from life until they become completely ineffectual arrested development abused Adurens

 

[Easton Dark]

Isn't 5 a really young age to play videogames? I didn't start playing videogames till around maybe 7-8 and even then I still had no idea how to beat Orcarina of time...maybe I was just a stupid kid.

I started at 4 years old. I played Mario 64, Zelda and Goldeneye a lot.

Heck, I was playing Conker's Bad Fur Day at 7.

The ratings system is really super useless. I wish parents didn't put so much stock into it.

 

[DJ_DEnM]

I'm surprised we still have the rating system at all, considering the demographic of what is probably the most popular (Read: Not best) M-rated/PEGI 18 game is all 12 year olds.

 

[RustlessPotato]

Doesn't matter, parents will go right on ignoring them.

Right on, Bitches.

O.T Sometimes I don't understand the rating system either. So it's more of a guideline to me and I must say that the parents of that child who strickly abide by the rating system should stop it.

When I was 5 I played Cosmo's Cosmic Adventure and Commander Keen etc. When I was 7 I played Wolfenstein 3D . I think we have less child friendly games, because it's not really a viable target for game developers. You have to ask yourself what constitutes Child Friendly for that kid. Don't give him or her Dead Space, but Animal Crossing or Rayman etc.. are perfect for him. Try and convince the parents to not base thing purely on the rating system, but make them watch reviews and videos etc...

 

[Yopaz]

I think it's more because they added the age 7 to the system. When it was either 3, 11, 16 or 18+ they couldn't demand that all games with slight cartoon violence should be rated 11, though some of the games rated 3 clearly contained violence to demand a rating. Now we have the 7 rating and so many games out there have that slight harmless violence that we all grew up with and never affected us and no-one ever considered it violence before. Now we can finally put a rating on that without being completely unreasonable. I don't think it's that harsh, but then again I don't think it's necessary. However the "I grew up with it and I turned out OK" defence is probably the most groundless way of defending something there is. The symbols on the box are more helpful though, the boxart is more helpful. It gives parents the opportunity to read the box, see the recommended age and read the reasoning behind it. It might not be effective, but that's because parents either only read the age recommendation or skip checking that at all when they buy their 5 year old Resident Evil.

Sorry for the rant everyone.

 

[sanquin]

I wouldn't let my child play video games until age 5 or so. And at that age only very little. Like, max 2 hours a day. I would want my kids to grow up still knowing what 'playing outside' is, and using their own imagination and such.

That being said, yea...the pegi ratings are way too conservative on a lot of games these days. I would have no problem letting my 5 year old play pokemon or lego games.

 

[Tanis]

I think the same thing happens with movies, but in reverse.

I remember seeing 'Hollow Man' in theaters and it having a nude scene...and some 'gore-ish' scenes, yet it was PG-13.