The Video Game Critic

[QUOTE=Dennis]

 Can you think of any other games with problematic ratings?

[/QUOTE]

No question about it - the ratings aren't perfect, and you have to wonder who in the heck is reviewing some of these games.

That said, I think we should support the current system.  It may not deter teenagers from playing a violent game, but if it gives a heads-up to a few clueless parents not to buy GTA San Andreas for their 8-year old, then it's worth it.

Plus, if the game industry didn't regulate itself, then guess who will: the government!  Do you really want Hilliary or Lieberman telling you what games you can play?  I didn't think so!

So guys, give the ESRB rating board a break.  We have a good thing going here!

[QUOTE=The Video Game Critic][QUOTE=Dennis]

 Can you think of any other games with problematic ratings?

[/QUOTE]

No question about it - the ratings aren't perfect, and you have to wonder who in the heck is reviewing some of these games.

That said, I think we should support the current system.  It may not deter teenagers from playing a violent game, but if it gives a heads-up to a few clueless parents not to buy GTA San Andreas for their 8-year old, then it's worth it.

Plus, if the game industry didn't regulate itself, then guess who will: the government!  Do you really want Hilliary or Lieberman telling you what games you can play?  I didn't think so!

So guys, give the ESRB rating board a break.  We have a good thing going here!
[/QUOTE]

 

I agree that government censorhip is bad.  I know that games are censored in most European countries and Australia, and I am glad we don't have censorship here.   The first amendment is the greatest thing this country ever produced.   But my biggest problem is, I don't think the ESRB has a big enough backbone.   I've seen a video of the hidden "hot coffee" minigame in GTA san andreas.   I would say that by looking at it, its is not even close to AO material.   It isn't any worse then the sex minigame in God of War.   I feel they caved into the politicians by rerating it AO.  I believe that if the hot coffee stuff was in the game to begin with, and Joe and Hillary didn't make a lot of noise, it would have been rated MA. Overall, I would rather have the ESRB then the government censor board like many other countries have, but there is always room to find stuff to complain about. 

I think the ideal ESRB rating scale is as follows;

Early Childhood - Edutainment games only.
Everyone - Everyone 6+
Everyone 10+ - Everyone 10+
Teen - Everyone 13+
Mature - Everyone 15+
Adults Only - Everyone 18+
Restricted - Porn games only.

This would give a bit more meaning to Adult Only as well as making Mature games less.. I don't know, intimidating? Probably not the right word, but it's all I can think of. Besides, many M games aren't really something that should be for people 17+ (such as Halo, MGS, PS2 Castlevanias, etc..)

For the life of me it's made no sense to have a separate rating system than what's used in the movie industry.  There's absolutely no reason not to have the exact same rating system.

 

G - General Admission (E) pretty much puzzles and Winey the Pooh games

PG - Parental Guidance (E) you might have to hit something

PG+13 Parental Guidance for those under 13 (T) you might get a sword to hit something

R - Restricted for those under 17 (M) blood flows when you hit something

NC-17 - No admittance for those under 17 (AO) lots of stuff bounce

 

The movie rating system works and has been in place for decades.

[QUOTE=ActRaiser]

For the life of me it's made no sense to have a separate rating system than what's used in the movie industry.  There's absolutely no reason not to have the exact same rating system.

 

G - General Admission (E) pretty much puzzles and Winey the Pooh games

PG - Parental Guidance (E) you might have to hit something

PG+13 Parental Guidance for those under 13 (T) you might get a sword to hit something

R - Restricted for those under 17 (M) blood flows when you hit something

NC-17 - No admittance for those under 17 (AO) lots of stuff bounce

 

The movie rating system works and has been in place for decades.

[/QUOTE]

Completely see what you're saying.. if its not broken why fix it? I see two potential problems/reasons why there is a different set of ratings. One is that the ESRB and the Industry wants to seperate themselves from the movie industry. It makes them look legitimate and that they can regulate themselves without help. You could ask the same question of TV ratings why not just use the movie ratings for them?

The other glaring problem is despite what Hideo Kojima wants you to believe, games and movies are two different mediums. Movies are also alot easier to rate. Depending on what you do in a game could potentially change its rating. If I type in a curse word for Link's name, I potentially just made an E+10 game into an M game. Let alone what happens if you go online and interact with other people on certain games.

The ESRB is really doing the best they can considering that this medium is literally in its infancy. It's  not easy to foresee all of the possible challenges and difficulties the future may hold for the industry. It's a very challenging task and something that will eventually be figured out down the road but its going to take awhile.

I think the MPAA's rating system could use a touch-up as well. Most movies the=at get an 'R' get a '14A' in Canada. For example; Snakes on a Plane and Constantine were definitely not '17 or older' kinds of movies, though I'd say both Underworlds are (crappy movies, by the way).

So, the 'R' rating has the same problem as the 'M' rating- it's used to rate movies/games for people between 14 and 17, but there's a different level of maturity between a 14 year old and a 16 year old.

Of course, I'm constant told I'm mature for my age, so it could just be me.

[QUOTE=The Video Game Critic][QUOTE=Dennis]  Can you think of any other games with problematic ratings?
[/QUOTE] No question about it - the ratings aren't perfect, and you have to wonder who in the heck is reviewing some of these games. That said, I think we should support the current system.  It may not deter teenagers from playing a violent game, but if it gives a heads-up to a few clueless parents not to buy GTA San Andreas for their 8-year old, then it's worth it. Plus, if the game industry didn't regulate itself, then guess who will: the government !  Do you really want Hilliary or Lieberman telling you what games you can play?  I didn't think so! So guys, give the ESRB rating board a break.  We have a good thing going here! [/QUOTE]

Couldn't agree more--keep the government out of it.

Anyway, the rationale I'm reading on this thread is brainless: "all teenagers smoke, drink, and have sex, so just remove the ratings." Oh, and if I read someone saying that there exists some inherent "right" to play any game, despite age, I'm going to puke.