I understand the need for a faster way to rate the many games that are being produced more and more quickly. However, surveys may not be as accurate as the human testers for these games. Perhaps hiring some freelance gamers would be an alternative to getting these games out quicker, or even offering the incentive of rating games to the gamers themselves in exchange for helping the companies out.
I also feel as though ratings are largely opinion-based and are a reflection of the society the game is brought into. The surveys would have to be based on purely factual information about the games in order to give a remotely accurate rating. Asking a producer if the game contains images of breasts is much different than asking a producer if there is inappropriate sexual content for children under 13. Children are exposed to more forms of sex and violence at younger ages now. Ratings have to make sure they're accurately depicting the content levels of the different ages brackets that are constantly changing.
I agree with the post above that different types of games are coming out faster and faster, and sometimes there's not enough people who can produce these games and rate them so computers and machines and surveys are used to rate these games. I agree that surveys are not as accurate as actual humans because people take the time to play and test out the game and actually see what is the rightful rating for the game. Surveys would not be as accurate because people taking the survey would be rating the game based on how much they like the game and if they play it themselves or not. I also agree that children are exposed to more and more sexual content on TV and the Internet and it is important to correctly censor and rate video games, something kids play the most.
With games coming out faster and faster, I understand the need for man power that companies simply can not afford. However, I feel, using a computerized survey is not the trick. Human testers don't only look at how many racial slurs, sexual acts, and bodily functions are within the game. Human testers also figure out how to reach these types of actions within the games, what the main goal of the game is, and help analyze the content to figure out what age group the game would be suited for.
I think a computerized survey would end up being just looking at how many bad tallies are within the game, how many good tallies, and weighing the options from just the numbers. A game's content can not just be judged on numbers. But the issue is getting the man power needed then.
I like the above blog post's idea on freelance game testers. Or even try to make it into an unpaid internship. I'm sure there are ways around that issue.
Like the posts stated above me, I understand that there is a great increase in video games that are being released every year. However, I feel as if having computers rate the games will not be as effective as having humans rate the games. Just totaling up the number of times a swear word or racial slurs is not an accurate description on how the rest of the game will be portrayed. Humans would actually take the time to fully play the game and notice how everything is said in dialog content and so forth.
I also agree with the other posts above me in regards to children being exposed to sex and violence at a much younger age. A computer might find a few swear words and racial slurs and consider that a very high rating. However, before the computers started rating games, an actual person may have rated a game with similar words and slurs a lower rating then the computer did, because they know the norms of today's society and how much children have already been exposed to.
I understand the need for a faster way to rate the many games that are being produced more and more quickly. However, surveys may not be as accurate as the human testers for these games. Perhaps hiring some freelance gamers would be an alternative to getting these games out quicker, or even offering the incentive of rating games to the gamers themselves in exchange for helping the companies out.
ReplyDeleteI also feel as though ratings are largely opinion-based and are a reflection of the society the game is brought into. The surveys would have to be based on purely factual information about the games in order to give a remotely accurate rating. Asking a producer if the game contains images of breasts is much different than asking a producer if there is inappropriate sexual content for children under 13. Children are exposed to more forms of sex and violence at younger ages now. Ratings have to make sure they're accurately depicting the content levels of the different ages brackets that are constantly changing.
I agree with the post above that different types of games are coming out faster and faster, and sometimes there's not enough people who can produce these games and rate them so computers and machines and surveys are used to rate these games. I agree that surveys are not as accurate as actual humans because people take the time to play and test out the game and actually see what is the rightful rating for the game. Surveys would not be as accurate because people taking the survey would be rating the game based on how much they like the game and if they play it themselves or not. I also agree that children are exposed to more and more sexual content on TV and the Internet and it is important to correctly censor and rate video games, something kids play the most.
ReplyDeleteWith games coming out faster and faster, I understand the need for man power that companies simply can not afford. However, I feel, using a computerized survey is not the trick. Human testers don't only look at how many racial slurs, sexual acts, and bodily functions are within the game. Human testers also figure out how to reach these types of actions within the games, what the main goal of the game is, and help analyze the content to figure out what age group the game would be suited for.
ReplyDeleteI think a computerized survey would end up being just looking at how many bad tallies are within the game, how many good tallies, and weighing the options from just the numbers. A game's content can not just be judged on numbers. But the issue is getting the man power needed then.
I like the above blog post's idea on freelance game testers. Or even try to make it into an unpaid internship. I'm sure there are ways around that issue.
Like the posts stated above me, I understand that there is a great increase in video games that are being released every year. However, I feel as if having computers rate the games will not be as effective as having humans rate the games. Just totaling up the number of times a swear word or racial slurs is not an accurate description on how the rest of the game will be portrayed. Humans would actually take the time to fully play the game and notice how everything is said in dialog content and so forth.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the other posts above me in regards to children being exposed to sex and violence at a much younger age. A computer might find a few swear words and racial slurs and consider that a very high rating. However, before the computers started rating games, an actual person may have rated a game with similar words and slurs a lower rating then the computer did, because they know the norms of today's society and how much children have already been exposed to.