GamerDad at Large! – CommonSense Media Edition
CommonSense Media was the first website to come out and compete directly with GamerDad.com. Compete isn’t exactly the right word. Their board is a who’s who of child advocates and they seem well financed. Hey, they’re a charity. I’m a charity too, but that’s not my legal status… I just don’t make a whole lot of money. Since I’ve been working for them for over a year now, I won’t pick and link each review. Instead, there’s a catch-all link. So go here and browse away! The site does a good job but does resort to scaremongering and sometimes perpetuates questionable information. They love stats like how many violent scenes has the average kid viewed and sometimes show bias: “Are Videogames Addictive” was a feature written by a psychologist who makes money “curing” kids from Internet addiction. The APA and AMA both have declared videogames and the Internet are not addictive. Still, it’s not as bad as NIMF and I’m trying to improve it from within. It’s run by a fine group of professionals and I’m proud to have my work appear there.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:46 am
Andrew, just so you know, the CSM are the bad guys. They’re like Greenpeace – Good intentions with bad methods.
Just ask Dennis what his readers think of the CSM.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:54 am
Oh I know what Dennis and his readers think. 😉
I’ve been well known to speak against them myself. I don’t bite the hand but I do challenge them. My editor over there, Jinny Gudmunsen, is a good person and a videogame expert in her own right (her specialty leans more toward kiddie games though).
But none of the things Dennis and crew dislike about CSM has anything to do with me. They don’t tell me how to review or change what I write, and they do pay me for my work. I’m all about helping parents – if a site offers me money and hands me a megaphone (CSM reaches far more of my target audience than I do) then I’ll take advantage of it. They’re still stuck in the old way of thinking and nobody on their advisory board is a gamer.
I think that’s ridiculous.
Greenpeace (or PeTA) are great examples btw.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 am
I think that getting the message to a wide audience is very important … especially while maintaining the GamerDad name.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 am
The “improve from within” line is key here I think, BlackIce. I have no doubt that if GamerDad thought his voice was being ignored or distorted, he’d say so and move on.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I looked at their reviews on the site and wow, just wow. It seems that no one under the age of 17 should be playing games at all 😐 In fact they gave the book, DaVinci Code a 15+. I read that when I was 12 and really enjoyed it. They gave Halo 3 a 17+ because there is some blood an guns. Basically if you see the gun no one under 17 should play. I think their reviews are just a bit extreme.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I like CSM’s website, for the most part. I particularly like the itemized descriptions of what exactly they rated the game for. So if a game/movie/book is rated for violence (for example), they describe exactly what kind of violence you can expect to see in the game. As much as I like gamerdad, sometimes the reviews are a bit vague on the particulars.
I’ll admit that I do think their “message” category is a bit silly. “This movie gets a bad message rating because the main character drinks Coke brand products.” Please! And I pretty much ignore the “talk to your kids about…” section. But overall, I’d say they’re reviews are helpful not just for helping me keep informed for my kids, but also in avoiding stuff I’d rather not see myself.
CSM has also helped me stay true to my principles by keeping me from giving money to developers of movies and games that have aspects I’d rather not reward economically.
I don’t take their age ratings literally. I look at the content and read the reviews and make my own decisions. Just like I do at Gamerdad, who makes no bones about saying “I wouldn’t let a kid under X play this game, but you do what you want.”
January 24th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Incidentally, on the first page of the game review section, 5 out of the 10 games on today’s front page at CSM are rated as being appropriate for children under 10. The second page has 8 out of 10 games appropriate for kids under 10.
So they’re not saying “nobody under 17 should play games.” They’re saying “Nobody under 17 should play Kane and Lynch.” I don’t have a problem with that.
Anyway, just to reiterate, approach the age ratings the same way you’d approach reviewer scores on any other review website: Ignore them and read the text.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:26 am
True, but some of their exaggerations are a bit silly. I don’t really remember any blood in MoH. It’s not that bad though, but It like the way stuff is around here a lot better.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I think their biggest problem is that they appear to cover film completely, books decently, websites well, but they have very few game reviews. They’re a big well financed nonprofit – we’re a tiny site staffed by enthusiasts and volunteers… yet we out do them in terms of games covered by around 3-1.
There’s little point in doing a site like CSM if the bulk of your videogame coverage is going to be E-rated games. Oh, and they’ve been a bit oppotunistic to attack the ESRB over Manhunt and they trust too many completely out of touch “experts” on subjects like game addiction. Go look at their article, it’s written by a woman who runs an addiction clinic. Someone who gains business convincing parents that the reason Junior plays a lot of games is because he can’t help it.
Not that he’s entertained, avoiding something, or acting out fantasies.
My point really is that CSM is out of touch. They’re last decade man, the world is moving past them.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Disclosure: I am friends with their reviews editor. Jinny Gudmunsen is a real pioneer in the field of advocating edutainment and games for kids. I’d just like to see her given more power over how games are covered there.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:35 am
“we’re a tiny site staffed by enthusiasts and volunteers”
That’s what makes this site better. I mean a larger quantity of the same quality is always good but the fact that you guys are gamers makes the reviews and opinions that much more reliable. At least to me. Maybe some more conservative people would see otherwise.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
They do. I mean the ESRB itself is largely staffed by non-gamers.
I usually ask this simple question: “Would you trust an opinion regarding television from someone who doesn’t own a television?” “Would you trust parenting advice from a non-parent?” “Would you trust movie ratings from someone who doesn’t watch movies?”
It’s ridiculous frankly. Luckily its changing pretty fast. 4 years ago things were much worse.