Parenting And Rock Band 2: Why I'm Not Getting The Game
by Derek Wilson on September 15, 2008 5:25 AM EST- Posted in
- Dell
So Rock Band 2 was released yesterday. Anand picked it up and I'll certainly be playing it as some point in the near future. But the release sparked a debate between my wife and I about age appropriate gaming.
Sure, it might not be a good idea to expose children to lots of murder, rape and explicit language. Not that all that stuff shouldn't be allowed in artwork and entertainment, but young children don't have the ability to understand the context of the work. As adults we have the capacity to differentiate between our own lives and the type of activities we see on TV, hear in our music, or interact with in our games.
As parents we have the responsibility to make sure our children understand reality and are able to function within the context of our current society. While children are still building the foundation of their understanding of the world, concepts ideas and images have a much higher impact on them than on adults. Beyond this, very young children tend just to repeat and imitate a lot and that can cause problems on its own.
For instance, I don't particularly have a problem with language. Any word we use has a meaning and can be effective in conveying an idea. "Bad" "dirty" and all that I believe to be misnomers. Sometimes people feel ways about stuff and need to relate that to others. Sometimes the f-bomb is the best tool to do this. But, for societal reasons, many people are offended by the use of certain words. It is thus inconsiderate for me to go around using words that other people may not be comfortable with hearing. And while I don't care if my child wishes to use any word she wants, there is the problem of her not understanding appropriateness at the ripe old age of 2.
So, while teaching someone the appropriate use of language and disallowing them the knowledge of something both result in the same outward appearance, age appropriateness of the proper parenting technique is necessary. For now, we try not to allow our daughter to learn words that she might inappropriately use to the detriment of others. This is in the same way we would not give her a knife until she comes to the point in her life where she is able to learn that stabbing herself and others with a sharp object is not a good idea without having to try it out first. It is not that knives are bad, it's just that until a certain age children are not equipped to lean how to use them well.
Yeah yeah, learning about killing and rape and cursing is bad (especially for really young ones). But there is a further issue at hand. While my wife and I (generally) agree on all the above, we diverge when it comes to some Wii games and Rock Band / Guitar Hero in particular.
Will exposing young children to games that closely imitate reality while dumbing it down and providing immediate gratification and simulated praise make children less interested in or apt to learn specialized skills like playing baseball, tennis or musical instruments? Should the interface to a video game also have an age appropriateness attached to it?
I say no. Laura says yes. Here's our point / counterpoint with me up first.
Derek's Thoughts:
I think playing games is playing games. Sure, my daughter might see me jamming out with a 5 buttoned guitar like object with a glorified light switch to "strum." She'll also see me racing a cartoon go-kart with a disembodied wheel while yelling at my wife. That's not going to make her not want to learn to drive. Doing the thing in real life has a function, and that function will have a value of its own outside the video game.
I can swing my Wii-mote at a screen and hit baseballs, but until we get holodecks (opening up a whole other debate), reality will always offer a different experience than video games. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, but they don't replace each other. There is room for both.
Adding to our specific situation, our daughter already loves guitars. She sees us play them and hears them on the radio and gets really excited. She loves plucking the strings and hearing the sound. But, of course, if she wants to play music she'll have a lot to learn. Lots of time and frustration will be part of the experience. While many have argued that Rock Band or Guitar Hero could inspire some children to want to learn an instrument, that doesn't apply here.
So could introducing Rock Band as a concept to our daughter fulfill her love of guitars enough to the point where she doesn't want to learn? Would she be so gratified by the cheering of fake crowds and the ease of pressing buttons while hearing a song spew forth that she would never want to pick up a real guitar?
I don't think so.
In fact, I believe that learning the basic ideas behind playing guitar that you can't take away from this type of game will go a long way to helping her learn guitar for real. The movement of your fingers between the buttons does help get your hands used to the types of movements you need to make when fingering a real guitar. Strumming, even though the strum bar is nothing like real strings, will absolutely teach you rhythm and timing.
My sister always wanted to play guitar. She took lessons for a long while but had a real hard time with strumming. She couldn't get it down until someone came along and was able to really teach her what it feels like to play songs the way they need to be played. I think music games can do that for people in ways that teachers often are not able.
I also don't think the cheering crowds have much to do with it. In the end there is a satisfaction we get from playing a game, and that is doing well at the game. Pleasing some digital fan isn't satisfying in the same way that pleasing a person is, but if pleasing a digital fan is part of the game then doing so still has its use.
Honestly, if we locked our daughter in a room and all she had to satisfy her was video games then I think we would have a problem. But I don't think that there is any age in which we need to worry about her replacing real experiences with video game experiences as long as we expose her to the spectrum of possibilities in the world. She will pick doing the things that she likes doing based on the things we expose her to. As long as she has access to varied experiences, she'll end up being the person she is supposed to be. If that's a rocker playing guitar, that's fine. If she ends up being a professional video game player, I think that's fine too. And I don't think they'll ever be mutually exclusive activities.
Laura's Thoughts:
Imagine a sink full of dishes. Splatters of yesterday's spaghetti have crystallized on half of the bowls, someone thought it might be a good idea to leave the peelings from lunch's cucumber experience all over the place, and an unidentifiable smell is emanating from what can only be described as the bowels of the drainpipe. And it's your turn to clean up after the meal. The usual method involves scalding hot water, copious amounts of dish soap, sore arms and a noisy dishwasher. But let's do it differently today. You pick up the first dish and run it under the water, all of the hardened food suddenly vanishing as if the faucet spews forth a magic crud-busting liquid. You place the dish into the washer and a massive crowd of young, busty teenagers screams your name. They want more. With each dish the voices swell, blinking lights indicate that you are washing a perfect load. You come to the end, shut the door, turn on the dishwasher… and a rainbow shoots out with the surge of the cheering crowd.
I don't care who you are, you will never want to wash dishes the old way again. But the joy of some tasks just isn't part of the doing. It's part of the result. And while learning how to play an instrument is not exactly like dishwashing, there are times when it will feel about as fun. When you're done, however, there's nothing quite as rewarding as having gotten that solo bridge guitar part perfectly, note for note… or the smell of lemony cleanness and a spotless kitchen.
I'm not afraid my daughter wouldn't want to pick up a guitar once she sees how fun it is to play Rock Band 2. But I would be amazed if she persevered with the real thing in the same way after experiencing the misleading rewards of the video game. I can honestly say that if you offered me an afternoon of golf or a Mario Golf disc, I'd choose the one that requires less walking. If I was told to either go join the army or play a round of Counterstrike, I wouldn't slap on a helmet. And if running the country felt at all like playing Generals or Civilization, a lot more people would be interested in the job. (Don't freak out, I know I probably crossed a few of the general publics' comfort boundaries with those last two sentences).
Not all game examples are like this, but it seems to ring true with a concept as tangible as learning an instrument. There's also so much good in learning to appreciate the joy of a task before watering it down. If my daughter wants to practice guitar and starts to really find a passion for it, there's no reason to continue to censor her video game guitar experiences.
As far as other aspects of Rock Band go, I'm not sure she should be subjected to some of the lyrics involved, either. Even if the game cuts out curse words (which I'm actually not a fan of, modifying art for the purpose of mass distribution and making money is the definition of SELLING OUT) it's still my job as her parent to not subject her to imagery like "come and drink it up from my fertility" and "drink my juice young love chug-a-lug me."
I won't apologize for having standards. As a matter of fact, if more parents had higher standards the game venders wouldn't have to be telling you what you can and can't buy according to a tiny rating box some suit slapped on the cover. I won't have to shield my kids from the ways of the world for long, but I'd be a bad parent if I didn't give them a slow exposure over their young lives.
Wrapping it up:
We won't be getting Rock Band 2. Sure, I believe what I believe. But part of good parenting is compromise. My wife feels strongly about this issue, and our policy is generally to respect the wishes of the more cautious parent at any given time. Since we both come from different backgrounds, I think this helps us cover a lot of bases.
I think our daughter's life will be just as fulfilled without Rock Band 2 in it, so it is no loss there. Plus I'll still get to play it at Anand's house, so I'm not missing out on anything either.
Certainly we aren't trained in child psychology or anything. But as parents we still need to consider all this stuff. As more and more technology enters the home, the impact this has on young children will only become more relevant. We don't have all the answers, but we do try and carefully consider these issues.
But what do you guys think?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
111 Comments
View All Comments
Ferzerp - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
After reading this whole thing, my only comment is-- how are you going to react when, without the big bad evil rock band, she still doesn't want to play an instrument?It seems like you have an interest in forcing it to happen.
1jdan - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
Hey Derek,I am 46, love my games, computer and console, and have two boys 11 and 9. I think you and your wife are doing the right things. Talking over the issues and debating them and picking the conservative route when their is no agreement. You spell it out in the third paragraph on reality. I had grey market tv back in the day and when that stopped one day we just let it ride. The boys, 5 and 3 at the time, began, after complaining for two days, to find other ways to play, not really pushed by us. Days turned to years. I noticed that when they were with friends they could find things to do when the others would complain. And they hated going to others houses because when they watched their shows it would stop every 5 minutes for the adds. I download all their shows, they come home and say dad everyone is talking about "?" , so I download it and they watch it.
In the meantime we had our games! Over the years we have played all the types, including RB. Now my oldest is starting to show signs of not wanting to participate in the REAL world a little and this has my wife and I talking. I am not talking going GOTH or anything just little things we see and hear. We just might try the old TV solution again on him. My youngest does not really play all that much and would rather go play with friends outside. They are different and these things happen slowly if your paying attention.
A friend of mine with older kids once told me the two most important things. She said kids are like elastic bands " if you pull them really hard in one direction they will snap back in the other when they get their freedom" and that she did not punish them all the time for making mistakes but instead talked with no giving of advice or orders. If we are to have any control over their lives later, as teens , when they could make decisions that could really hurt them, we need to be able to talk and they feel they can come to us for help with no fear of punishment or lecture.
I have used the games and movies we watch to teach them about the REAL world. The language in these we talk about all the time. Your daughter will know all these words soon enough. How and when to use them IS the issue. You are right that any word can be said to mean hate. But we must try to be aware of others feelings.
My little one had nightmares and we traced it to movies he had seen with bigger kids. Thus I began to show him about the fakeness in movies, the special effects. On slow motion and no sound even CGI looks bad. I had them make their own movie to show them how they make someones arm come off, you know props and different shots. all shown real fast, it looks good. He wanted to see "cloverfield". So I gave him a lesson on suspense. You know,why the blair witch movie worked bcause you never really see anything and your mind makes it far worse than the reality. I went to the frame in the movie, "cloverfield", where the monster was standing over the boy and froze it. with no sound playing and a bad CGI monster he was dissapointed that it looked like every other monster he had seen. point for me! They have become quite the critics.
The last thing is about what age to give them this information. sometimes they bring it up like a nightmare and sometime we try to pre-pare them for things. I live in canada also and you know how it is with hockey, well mine wouldn't skate. One of my good friends is a scout and he was telling all of us one day, a bunch of hockey dads and me the outcast, that this push to make them so good so early does nothing to improve their chances. So many in the NHL dont even find the sport until the are over 12.
Anyway, you and your wife are both right. Their is no roadmap and no one knows your own daughter like you two. You Teach, You Watch, You Three learn. And their should be ratings on games and shows just to help out with decisions. You are your own liquor control board!!
John, Cheers
p.s. keep up the great writing, tech and all.
JWalk - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
Yeah, compromise. In most marriages it works out in exactly this way. You want to do one thing, your wife wants to do another. Then you "compromise" and do what she wants to do. lolBut here are a couple of real points I'd like to make. I have heard the over-used argument before that playing Guitar Hero or Rock Band discourages kids from playing real instruments. It is ridiculous. Unless your kid only wants to know how to "play" a set library of songs in the exact same way over and over again, then a video game will never be real competition to playing a real instrument. Music creation and interpretation, and the ability to learn how to play ANY song you like (or can think up) are all major reasons to learn how to play a real guitar.
That also kills the dish-washing analogy. The difference in the two dish-washing scenarios was the ease of the task. The end result remained the same: The dishes were clean. But a video game guitar and a real guitar don't reach the same ending. You aren't playing a song with a plastic guitar controller. You are playing a game. Give your daughter some credit. She will understand the difference.
Oh, and one last thing. It is also obvious that this is your first and only child. If you had more children, you would not have the time to indulge in this level of "over parenting". You would just be happy they were willing to sit and play a game together, without trying to kill each other or burn your house down.
Relax a little. She is going to turn out ok. ;)
bigbacon - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
I saw the word shield in there. Shielding kids from stuff is the problem with kids today. I'm not saying you should just let them romp around and do whatever they want like lots of people do, but something like this that can actually give them some good, build coordinations and such while giving enjoyment shouldn't be shielded. She'll either like it or she won't. If she already has a liking for music and she hates the game, thats not going to kill the liking for music.Plus, most kids know the differece between game and life. Unless she doesn't get that, then you'll have issues but you will NEVER know unless you let her try things. You can explain to her that it's a game and not like playing a real guitar while still trying to build that musical influence that you say she is showing.Finally - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
I have read the article and most of the comments and I strongly disagree.My first thought was: Another perfect™ example of American parental overprotectionism.
You want to protect your child against everything, which means you want to shield if from the whole world, filled with cursing, murdering, child-molesting, internet-raping, predating bad guys, who have only 1 purpose in life: to get your daugther. Yeah... so you turn your house into a nice, toy-filled pink and white decorated prison.
The problem with that kind of attitude is, that you instill FEAR on your child. FEAR of the outside world, FEAR of (completely friendly) strangers, FEAR that there is a terrorist boogeyman behind each and every corner, FEAR of everything that's not pre-labeled "safe to use" by her very parents: you, the almighty dictators over her little life. The sentence: "...it's my house and as long as you live here... (not that you are allowed to leave)..." comes to mind.
Another problem is that you can't protect your children from everything. Heck, sometimes failing or getting hurt is part of the learning process. I guess you want her to learn walking without falling even ONE TIME. Bad news: won't happen.
Besides, pain is one of the quickest and best learning stimuli that exist out there, imagine this:
"Darling, please don't touch the oven, it's hot."
"Please darling, don't touch it, it's still hot."
*touches it out of unsatisfied curiosity* which leads to a small burning, quick pain reflex, big crying, but a lesson learned for life: she will never touch a hot oven again.
Of course you don't give children guns and knifes to play with.
But there is a difference between overprotectionism and safety.
Imho 9/11 has changed America for the worse: fear-mongering seems to be norm.
And if you don’t overprotect your children: „Come here, mommy, that’s the BAD PARENT sticker just for you!“
Yes, and sometimes I actually ask myself how children could grow up in the 50ies or in the 19th century without all that safety measures around them, without GPS chips inplanted into their body to locate them 24/7 and without parental control locks on every toy they might get their hands on... how did they grow up?
I guess this is all because the invention of childhood. In earlier times children were seen as adults. Of course they differed in size. But they had all the responsibilites. If you grew up in a big family with 6 or more children and had the simple-sounding task of "go, look after your brothers and sisters" - you had a freak-lot of responsibility to shoulder.
In the modern age the concept of childhood was invented and with it came the declaration of children as total stupid, unresponsible morons, who have to be spooonfed (and I don't just mean food by that) till they are 18.
I remember a diary entry by Werner Herzog (a German independent film maker) who visited a jungle tribe, far from so-called civilization. There, the people lived in huts and the men used very sharp machetes for work and travel in the jungle. When they were at home, they simply put those tools on the ground. According to them no toddler was ever hurt by one of the machetes.
How come? I asked myself. Aren't children total idiots, who set the house on fire if you leave them alone for 5 minutes?
Guess not. But you have to change the premise, your point of view on children to start with...
You have to treat them like intelligent beings who can and will live up to responsibility if they are really given some.
Second: What I think about products like Rock Band:
You want to strip out the heart and soul oft artist’s work (e.g. lyrics) to make it „safer“ (<-- here, it's the signal word again: safe, everything has to be safe and family friendly). But guess what? "Rock" isn't just a genre. It has a meaning (or meant something, till parents came and considered playing black metal on guitar pro as great, funny parenting). Rock, at least to me, means rebellion against conservatism. What you propagate is some kind of BARBIE’S BEATY QUEEN POP BAND ADVENTURES (heck, even ABBA had songs about drug use (fly like an eagle) and capitalism (money, money, money).
You complain about Rock Band’s usage of original songs with original lyrics...
Those original lyrics are - per definition - not family-friendly or "safe for kids" or whatever bullshit you want them to be. They are, if they aren't made by big media corporations of today, songs of rebellion, songs of drugs, sex and rock’n’n roll, songs about serious and funny things, songs about trying your hardest to check the boundaries oft aestethics... and, you might have guessed it, this includes rebelling against your parents...
I recommend watching PBS Frontline: The way the music died.
Industry has understood and made it a big, big, BIG DOLLAR. Teenage rebellion has become yet another product and parents in their midlife crisis' are even better buyers than little kids as they trying harder to be more youthful than ever before.
But what does the child do if it encounters this? What does it do when it finally realizes that all that pseudo-rebellion is yet another marketing scam? As fake as wrestling? As fake as punk?
Well, there are extremes for that child to go to... like Gangsta Rap or Black Metal. …which are yet the same product from the same music corporation with a differening marketing target: "What, you don't like mainstream Rhianna? Well, here is some Marilyn Manson for you - same label btw, so we made sure that your money safely travels to US, the big music industry – isn’t that great? That’s the very definition of SELLING-OUT. And you got no chance around it.
What shall be left?
No rebellion at all.
Quote:
it's still my job as her parent to not subject her to imagery like "come and drink it up from my fertility" and "drink my juice young love chug-a-lug me."
I like the English language. You have two words which have only one equivalent in German:
playing vs. gaming.
Play is a free-for-all sandbox of fantasy. And children, especially girls don’t play nice.
[quote] Then again, girls' refusal to "play nice" has an equally long history. Victorian girls used the trays from their tea parties to toboggan down stairways; they tortured their dolls and held elaborate mock-funerals for them.[/quote]
I recommend reading the whole article: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issu...">http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article...a-Barbie...
BarbieGirls is an Orwellian overprotectionist parent’s dream come true.
All the censorship we need to ensure safety.
I actually like the idea of a Barbie orgy, complete with stripping, petting and loooots of fucking involved. There goes the safety! She just said a dirty word! Oh noooooo! Western culture is doooomed!
Laura Wilson - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
you clearly don't have kids. or you're currently doing a real number on them. and by the way, FEAR can also be a useful tool for human survival.when people treated kids like adults a long time ago it was because of a pathetically short lifespan, and little pre-pubescent girls who married middle aged men then died in childbirth didn't have the luxury of parents sifting through what they should and shouldn't be exposed to due to the need to continue the family name. i'm sure the girls also weren't asked how they felt about all that before it happened, either.
if simple protections for young children are so dangerous explain the misery of the children who have no one watching out for them. orphanage kids, abortion survivors, etc. rarely have an easy time adjusting to life as they grow.
the toddlers that never hurt themselves on the machetes probably couldn't pick them up. have you ever lifted one? they aren't like plastic light-sabers. but i suppose in the same way my child has been around the exposed phone jack her whole life now and hasn't been zapped by it. perhaps i should remove the gate from the stairs and let her take a few tumbles to learn a good lesson. i can't believe how difficult i've been making it, i've been doing it all wrong by caring at all. it's amazing, really, she's all of TWO FREAKING YEARS OLD, why am i still carrying around my "parent" business cards? she's totally ready to fly.
IgorLevicki - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
"you clearly don't have kids. or you're currently doing a real number on them."Why did you have to resort to an ad hominem attack? Shame on you.
In my opinion the key is this issue you have with yourself -- you have shown little to no self-control by the above reply, and you want to have control over someone else's life out of fear that they will turn out to be a copy of the uncontrollable you.
"and by the way, FEAR can also be a useful tool for human survival."
FEAR is never usefull -- it is paralyzing, it diminishes the capacity for rational thinking thus leading to poor (and sometimes fatal) decisions, and it does not stimulate one's mind to be inquiring.
Laura Wilson - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
really? ad hominem attack?"you turn your house into a nice, toy-filled pink and white decorated prison."
i thought i was talking to you on your level. your whole post was an attack.
without fear man wouldn't have the fight or flight impulse. any psychologist will tell you there's usefulness in adrenaline. the same as hunger, (which a lot of people are down on these days, when in fact they should be down on starvation) sorrow, and anger. an overly inquiring mind is just as likely as a fearful one to cause poor and sometimes fatal decisions, as well as clouding judgment. these bad choices are made based on the person's character, not emotions.
if fear is such a harmful emotion why has evolution (perhaps i'm assuming you are a believer in evolution, it's ok if you aren't) left us with it?
Laura Wilson - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
i now see you aren't the original poster of "why don't we just take off the safety labels and let the problem solve itself," sorry about my mix-up.Finally - Saturday, September 20, 2008 - link
Hello, I'm the original poster of Frank Zappa's quote, who thought it might be fitting.[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6...[/img]
Well. I've read through the responses and I don't understand why I have to have a baby in order to grant permission to comment on education of children. This is basic criticism. E.g.: You don't have to be a bestselling writer to get if someone has produced a book full of drivel. Otherwise there would be only a handfull of people on the world to criticize books...
Same goes with any work of art or skill. You don't have to be a master at it to point out flaws...
I think a world, where children are controlled by their parents up to the point that they get chips inplanted which give away their position, parent-locks on their electronic devices, cameras and microphones in their sleeping rooms and 24/7 surveillance is exactly mirroring the behaviour exercized by Ingsoz over the citizens in 1984, except all parents are in the lucky, all-powerful position of Big Brother/Sister.
I can understand that it feels nice to be so overwhelmingly powerful and to have it in one's might to completely shape a human's life. But I wouldn't be so sure if all of these precautions help your child (at all).
The children produced in Brave New World are happy. Because raising them has been professionalized by people who know best. Every time. It's also a great example of genetical manipulation. In the end, your product isn't really human anymore, but a happy sheep, willing to obey.
Do you know the Struwwelpeter? It's a children's "comic" book, teaching children how to behave and what they must not do in order to evade the gruesome punishment/death of the "evil child", which are closely portrayed in this book. It was written in the early 19th century. Today, we can only look at it as grotesque and rather violent, but it was an instant bestseller and even today it can be found in many families' homes.
Who tells you, that what you do is the right thing?
I've read a study which found, that if you let your child live in a clinically clean house, it has a much-much higher chance of catching allergies.
To come back on topic: In my mind, overshielding or overprotecting is never good (hence the name). Children are "built" to resist lots of damage. They are meant to fall sometimes and their bodies are best suited to withstand those learning side-effects. Just look at their bones, evolution and nature (or God, if you will) just prove to employ the best engineers and architects.
And once again, I ask you this: How did children grow up in the 80ies (without all those safety mumbo-jumbo)? That's just ~25years ago, not really a long time... I think there is a big industry, just waiting for the parent's dollar to sell them everything to make their homes children-proof...
But how do you sell protection? By creating a need!
It's like the Mafia, just ask them how to sell protection.. they know best. To me, this family-friendly-protect-your-child-now-it-might-be-in-danger-industry is nothing but the Mafia. They create fear through alerting the public by the means of massive media spam.
_______
Instead of exercising ad hominem attacks we could think of the reason why there is such a big need for security nowadays. I say it is man-made and serves industry's purposes. One example of human-generated mass-hysteria (there you have your fear; and you know what fear does? It turns the mass into one big flock of sheep that can be driven anywhere the wolves want):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzF173GqTU">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzF173GqTU