WHEN it comes to video games, parents have a new name: they're known as "digital immigrants", while their youngsters are called "digital natives".

The children are born to it, and mothers and fathers who stray into the parallel universe of the game often find themselves on strange territory where the language makes little sense and they don't fit in. Some bemoan so much creativity and money being spent killing virtual aliens, when it's so darned difficult to find a decent new board game these days.

The digital immigrants grew up with a three or five TV channels and VCRs, and moved on to dvds, email and the web, but any kind of close engagement with the virtual world of X-Box, PS3, Wii and beyond is a step too far for many.

Their cyber-savvy children are technically way beyond them, and this makes it difficult to police exactly what it is that children are up to, especially if they access games via the internet used by multiple players around the world, involving dozens of levels of difficulty and many thousands of permutations in terms of developing plot and increasingly complex moral dilemmas – like choosing whether or not to shoot someone or even a group of people.

As many mothers and fathers know, buying a video game is nothing like checking out the information on a Monopoly box, and easily-bored children have a habit of asking for a game they hear about from much older youngsters. The apparently cute or cartoonish characters on the cover can be positively evil when they spring to life on-screen.

Although there are classifications on the packaging, research among parents has shown that many confuse age guidance linked to content, as used in film classification, with a simple level of difficulty calibrated to the capabilities of certain age groups. Children possibly encourage this confusion. Many are also adept at manoeuvring their way around some of the parental controls available to block access to certain areas of the web.

The Government has given its full backing to a report recommending that video games be forced to carry a cinema-style age classification. The report, carried out by a team led by psychologist and Government adviser Dr Tanya Byron, also calls for the creation of a UK council for child internet safety, and huge education campaign to warn parents, teachers and child carers of the possible risks of games and the internet.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown commissioned the report last year, following concerns that new electronic forms of entertainment could be harming children's moral development. Schools Secretary Ed Balls said at the launch yesterday that Dr Byron's report, Safer Children in a Digital World, was ground-breaking and would be hugely influential, both at home and around the world. He said: "I don't think any country in the world has done a report on this scale on these issues."

Currently only games showing sex, gross violence or material that could lead to the commission of a crime require an age rating from the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), and fewer than two per cent carry an 18 certificate.

A new legally-binding system would ensure that every game is rated in the same way as films, with U, PG, 12, 15 and 18 categories. Dr Byron recommends that the classifications are displayed prominently on the front
of games.

The voluntary European pictorial classification system (PEGI) would continue to be used on the back of the games. BBFC and PEGI should work together to establish a single set of standards managing the risks of online gaming, the report says.

"We live in an increasingly risk-averse culture, where we are limiting our children's out-of-home experiences because of fear of harm," said Dr Byron. "However, risk-taking is an imperative of childhood – young people and children will always want to explore boundaries...and they will sometimes play this out at home, in the digital world, with many parents unaware
of this."

She said she wanted to bring increased clarity to the games industry, so that parents would have the necessary information to know what they are buying for their children. She acknowledges that the gaming industry had
co-operated with consultations for the report, and accepted
that it made adult games for adult players.

She also says she does expect the industry to take greater responsibility by drawing up codes of practice for social networking sites, with more effective regulation of online advertising and improving access to parental control software.

John Carr, of the UK Charities Coalition on Internet Safety, welcomed Dr Byron's report, saying that while self-regulation in the game industry has worked until now, everyone concerned needed to "up their game".

"In too many discussions about children's and young people's use of new technologies there tends to be a blanket assumption that all children are the same: all equally adept and knowledgeable when they go online, all able to draw on the same personal and parental resources or levels of support. Nothing could be further from the truth."

Microsoft's Neil Thompson called the report "timely and valuable" and a spokesman for the children's charity National Children's Homes said: "We particularly welcome its focus on game ratings and internet safety. Ratings on video games must be made compulsory, with tough penalties enforced when they are ignored."

He added that the proposed education campaign must engage above all with parents.

Paul Allen, editor of Computeractive magazine, says such a report on the industry and its relationship with children had been a long time coming.

"It's about time that someone came along and took an overview. The video game industry has been seen as separate to other forms of media and their regulations. But it would be unfair to say that it has not taken any responsibility."

Mr Allen said there is real confusion both about the age recommendations on video games, which many parents relate to a youngster's mental capabilities, rather than the nature of the content, and also about the PEGI symbols used to flag up contentious content.

"It's not that clear, is it, that a symbol showing two white men and a black man refers to racist content? It's a good idea to revisit how information is presented on packaging, and a single system would be helpful."

Mr Allen says that one of the best aspects of Dr Byron's
review and its high-profile launch with top-tier Government approval, is that this signals how important and mainstream the issues are. Such profile might also help to alert parents about greater vigilance of their children's habits.

"Parents don't take anywhere near enough interest in and responsibility for what their children are doing online and playing video games. Some just plonk their kids down in front of the computer in the way they used to in front of the telly; others have very little understanding of how games and the internet work.

"I don't think retailers take enough responsibility, either. I have seen young teenagers buying 18-rated video games without being stopped and asked for ID. There needs to be far greater policing of this kind
of thing.

"There are also online game retailers that sell highly violent or sexual adult games to 16-year-olds who pay with a Solo card. Retailers can be fined up to £5,000 for selling adult material to under-18s, but it's not clear how often it happens."

Tom Woolley, curator of new media at the National Media Museum in Bradford, says it's right that video games should be classified in the same way as films. "It's a big job to do, as there are so many games and many of them involve different levels of immersion, with one game sometimes lasting 40 or 50 hours or more.

"I don't think the industry in any way tries to fool parents about the content of games. For instance, it's obvious that a war game is going to involve lots of shooting and killing, although some are very explicit and bloody. Staff in games shops should know enough about games to be able to discuss content with parents.

"It's also up to parents to find out about content, but still keep checking what their child is doing, and not just leave them on the computer in a bedroom without being aware of exactly what's going on.

"Maybe it's not even a good idea to have the computer in the bedroom."