What is Wrong with Parents?: When Games Meet Reading and Morality

Maybe I am getting old, but parents seem to be a little more dense than they used to be–or a lot more paranoid.

First, a little backstory…

In my formative years I grew up in the late 1980's. To some of you that makes me incredibly young, but when I was learning to read I was also playing Nintendo. Sure, my Mother did a lot of work trying to get me interested in reading (and to be sure, I was quite adept at it), but like most kids I enjoyed videogames as much as I enjoyed a good book, if not more. Luckily, my Mother was also not terrified of her little snowflake getting frustrated, annoyed, mildly scared, or exposed to more than just kittens lovingly batting at flowers. Due to this, I turned out great! Well, at least mostly good.

There are two games I remember playing as a kid that made me both slightly frustrated and enamored with trying to read. The first one was a game I owned: Who Framed Roger Rabbit by LJN. Okay, I admit, LJN was NOT a good company if you were looking for a game that had "quality" or "fun". On the other hand, Who Framed Roger Rabbit? was one of their better titles that was surprisingly forward thinking and creative–though obtuse. It was non-linear, open world, and followed the plot of the movie (if you squint). Most of the game was very much a "Find item A, use it on area B to obtain item C…" and so on. That is, until you get to the ball-bustingly impossible last boss. That is the first and only time I have ever wanted to punch Christopher Lloyd square in the jaw.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? had a fair amount of reading in an NES game. You had to interrogate random citizens in order to get clues as to where the next key item is, or if the building is worth searching for random items. If you got caught by the weasels you had to find the punch line of a joke from a list in order for them to release Roger–if you failed they bludgeoned him over the head and sad music played, and then you also lost a life. So, it required you to both read and be able to understand the logical connection between a set-up and punch line to succeed in the game. That is a pretty good thing for a five year old to learn, right? Complex thinking, right?

Like I said earlier, I was still a little young for this game and needed assistance–which was probably a bit annoying for my mother. Everytime I talked to an NPC (of which there were hundreds in this game) I would call her into the room to translate for me. Sure, this was tedious, but eventually when a character said "Buzz Off!" a hundred times, I learned what those letters meant and didn't need my mother to tell me anymore. So, coupled with her reading to me every night and encouraging me to pick up books, videogames helped me learn to read! Imagine that.

The next game that captured my imagination and contributed to my education came soon after Roger Rabbit, and that was the ever-popular Dragon Warrior. I was a little too young to understand this game completely, but I remember pouring over the manual/strategy guide with my friends as I (being the oldest) read out the precious information about Edrick and his magical armor that was necessary in beating the Dragon Lord. Dragon Warrior also taught me the value of mathematics, at least slightly. I knew that if a skeleton made my 100 points of health drop to 50, I should run away because it was clearly dangerous. Once again, though I was occasionally scared and confused by the game, I grew as a gamer and as a child. I got better, I got over obstacles, and I learned in a way that was enthralling to my young mind.

That brings me to now.

I work at a videogame store. I have for a long time. One of the most frustrating things that I see has to deal with Pokemon. Often, children will ask their parents for Pokemon on the DS: Black, White, Heartgold, Platinum, etc. It doesn' matter. What does matter is that the parents often frown at the back of the case and ask if there is any reading. "Yes" I respond, "but kids often play the game enough that eventu–", to which they interrupt  "They are too young to read. It will be too tough for them. Sorry buddy! It's too tough for you!", to which the child responds with "Aww!" or "No it's not!". If the kid is five I can understand the parent being mildly hesitant, but sometimes the kid is 7 or 8 and I feel a twinge of terror for the future. If you kid wants to learn to read through videogames you should ENCOURAGE and ASSIST them, not shut them down because they need help. That is how children learn best–by finding something they like and learning to succeed with the help of their parents.

Here is where my crotchety old gamer mentality comes up. Often the parents ask if a game is "hard" for their kid. Maybe it is? So what!? When I was a whipper-snapper ALL the games were hard, and we liked it. It built character. We had to die 100 times before we beat level 5, and we felt accomplishment. The games didn't hold your hand, they slapped it! Nowadays children are coddled with games that are so simplistic we couldn't even imagine them in the 80's and 90's. Children SHOULD be challenged, they SHOULD feel failure and frustration. It is part of the learning process and part of being human. Denying them the chance to fail is not going to help them when they reach adulthood.

Why did I decide to write this?

I was researching a game to buy my niece and nephew. They are around 7 and 9. I remember a pretty interesting Wii adventure game called Petz Dogz 2 (don't laugh!). It is not a pet raising sim, it is an adventure game. You are a puppy that releases a nasty wolf from prison that goes about causing havoc. You have to undo the damage, and run into mild confrontations with other animals (whom you beat by sneaking up and barking at them, and later in the game toss pebbles). Very tame, very simple, but reasonably engaging because of the half-way interesting premise and gameplay variety. There is some reading, but it isn't like the dogs are reciting Dante.

There are no reviews on the internet, except for a couple from Amazon. Some were fairly good and informative! Others…Well…

"I bought this game for my 5 year old daughter. The back of the box described exactly what she likes to do: "choose a puppy and make him cuter with clothing and accessories"; "create a comfortable pet village and guide your lovable bundle of fur through 60 fun adventures"; and "Compete against your friends in mini-games such as racing." Wow is this description ever wrong! I opened the manual and learned the game was actually about defeating an evil wolf (Ivlet) and his evil minion. Through the course of the game "enemy animals are on the way. Ivlet cast an evil spell on the animals in the fields to make them go wild and they will attack you if you get too close to them." Your puppy can actually DIE in this adventure. There is far too much evil, attacking, illness, etc. to make this game fun for a 5 year old girly girl. You can't even dress up your dog until you play the games and earn money to buy clothes – and the first game is "cops and robbers" – again, not suitable for a 5 year old girl. Re-read the product description and look for the mention of the evil wolf. It's not there yet it's the primary mission of the game! I am going to return this game as it is truly not what's advertised."

I find this mother's infuriating insistance that any sort of conflict or "evil" characters are inappropriate for a five year old strange and mildly disturbing. Especially because the puppies don't actually die–they just fall over and you have to start again. On page 2 of the comments, someone claims that they are going to throw the game out because you  "Can't play any of the games unless your kids follow the evil & magic games, come on – most parents do not want to have their kids "exposed to the darkside" through games!!!!". Reading this makes me glad my mother was a saint–and an un-religious one at that.

My point is that this is not a perfect game, but the kids have to earn the wee booties and hats for their puppies by completing tasks and helping people. Their character makes a mistake in the beginning of the game and then has to remedy it. I doubt even the most sheltered five year old would be reasonably scared by this game, well, unless they have parents that review games on Amazon. The children also have to read, or have their parents around to help them read. What is so wrong about this?

I see some of the reviews also complain that the game isn't just sitting around petting puppies and taking care of them. Is that really mentally stimulating for your child? I could see that being half-way interesting for a three year old, but why keep buying them Nintendogs clones until they involintarily vomit every time they see a dog?

Parents seem terrified to have their precious babies frustrated, challenged, scared, or even slightly mentally stimulated. Why? I suppose it creates more work for them. They have to actually sit down and help their child understand or succeed, rather than letting a magic box do it for them. They have to tell their kid that the cartoon wolf that wrecked puppy village is pretend, but that it is okay because they can fix it! They have to do their job as parents–but clearly that is too much work.

Videogames are not mindless entertainment. Parents may grow concerned to see their kid sitting blank faced as they swing swords at moblins or catch oddly mutated versions of real-world animals–but though their face is blank their mind is working. That is the face of concentration and focus, and failing to realize the educational value of videogames is a terrible mistake on the part of parents. Are all games appropriate for children? Hell no! However, they have the potential to engage children on an intellectual level whilst teaching them mathematics, reading, and basic problem solving–and it can be an amazing tool, provided they have parents who are willing to help them grow.