NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by my reply denouncing the ESRB in the Hot Coffee thread, I decided to post this poll: What are your thoughts on the ESRB? Is it a good thing, bad thing, don't care? Should it be more lenient on games or tougher?

Note: The option "abandoned completely" does not mean the same as the one below it: it means that this particular organization is useless, but that there should still be some kind of restriction on games and who they're sold to (just not in the same fassion as the ESRB).

It's just a waste of money going to make soccer moms happier.

And apparently not even that works to shut them up.

It's just a waste of money going to make soccer moms happier.

And apparently not even that works to shut them up.
Agreed. It seems to me (in my area, and also what I hear in news and such) the only people concerned with it are the soccer moms who complain constantly about the violence and sex and language, then would probably turn around and by their 14-, 15-, 16-year-old kid a T or M rated game without any question. It's nuts.

Myrth

(I'm too tired to find out what the ESRB is, lol)

Uhhh....get rid of it...lol when I was yonger I would try to buy a "M" game and they wouldn't sell it to me. So I found my dad or mom in the store...asked them could I have it? If they said yes we went to the counter and bought it...right after that same person said no to me...so...uhh...it don't really do anything.

ESRB is those little ratings on video games. Ironically video game publishers decide what rating to give, and sicne a higher rating usually means less sales they can be liberal on their ratings. (can be)

I think it's fine except anything rated AO should be enforced more, I've seen 15 year olds buy AO games, if they have that rating, it's for a reason.

It also wouldn't hurt if parents knew what the ratings meant, even though many stores have posters, my dad bought my 13 year old brother Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Now if they knew what was in that game they wouldn't let him have it, but they don't bother to look at it, so he has his hands on it.

Myrth

(I'm too tired to find out what the ESRB is, lol)
It's an organization designed to rate games into levels based on what they feel about the content. There's E (everyone), T (teen, 13+), M (mature, 17+) and AO (18+).

ESRB is those little ratings on video games. Ironically video game publishers decide what rating to give, and sicne a higher rating usually means less sales they can be liberal on their ratings. (can be)

I think it's fine except anything rated AO should be enforced more, I've seen 15 year olds buy AO games, if they have that rating, it's for a reason.

It also wouldn't hurt if parents knew what the ratings meant, even though many stores have posters, my dad bought my 13 year old brother Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Now if they knew what was in that game they wouldn't let him have it, but they don't bother to look at it, so he has his hands on it.
But how much more explicit can ESRB get without getting in the way of the marketing process of the game? (Taking away more space on the cover).

It's right there on the front what is the youngest morally acceptable target audience. Right on the back it states what type of inappropriate content is found in the game.

But how much more explicit can ESRB get without getting in the way of the marketing process of the game? (Taking away more space on the cover).

It's right there on the front what is the youngest morally acceptable target audience. Right on the back it states what type of inappropriate content is found in the game.
Agreed. If parents are too dumb and lazy to

a) check the ratings and description (which is printed on the back, containing what is considered objectionable, using words like "strong language", "strong violence" and "strong sexual content", for GTA:SA respective), and:

b) to inquire, either with the staff or someone else who has played the game (even a child's friends) as to what it contains, then there's not much they can do.

Granted, I feel that they're already doing too much, as the effect these ratings have on both sales and on what stores stock them make it much harder for either thoes who can purchase games at that rating or a child with permission to find.

Edit: Just a clarification on my positions because I must sleep.

I believe the ESRB is useless, and it should be up to parents to decide what they want kids to buy. I understand the importance of listing possible issues and offensive content, but a prominant sign that deters certain places from selling the game is dumb.
Also, I feel that the arbitrary age differences are dumb, and just limit people who might want to legitimatly play games. For example, an M rated game is 17+. At 16, I was denied the ability to buy an M game at my local Future Shop (one reason I no longer shop there). In the year since, I have no new information about sexuality (I've seen worse on TV, and it's not like I havn't seen pr0n), violence (I watch Hollywood movies too), language/swearing, etc. I'm basically the same. So why could I not have bought the game a year ago? What difference did the one year make? The same between 17 and 18 (M and AO). I know 12-year-olds who curse worse and have seen more violence than some of my friends (aged 16-19)! There's no point to arbitrary dates or the removal of games from shelves due to ratings.

The ESRB belongs in the scrapheap, right next to the FCC (Fascist Communi(st)cations Cadre)

For those of you who want it scrapped remember that the US gov't wanted to scrap it recently (due to a couple of killings "linked" GTA) and replace it with a government ratings system. The industry doesn't want this, as it means that those soccer moms can lobby to get a game rated higher (M-AO, T-M etc.) basically having people who are not involved in the market dictate what can and cannot be sold. It will never be gotten rid of, and I'm glad.

Marric']For those of you who want it scrapped remember that the US gov't wanted to scrap it recently (due to a couple of killings "linked" GTA) and replace it with a government ratings system. The industry doesn't want this, as it means that those soccer moms can lobby to get a game rated higher (M-AO, T-M etc.) basically having people who are not involved in the market dictate what can and cannot be sold. It will never be gotten rid of, and I'm glad.

Exactly. If they got rid of ESRB, then the government would step in, and, personally, that sickens me.

It also wouldn't hurt if parents knew what the ratings meant, even though many stores have posters, my dad bought my 13 year old brother Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Now if they knew what was in that game they wouldn't let him have it, but they don't bother to look at it, so he has his hands on it.

Am I the only person who's parents won't let me have overrated games or movies? :rolleyes:

Personally, I don't have a problem with most stuff. It's when it is really unnecessairily violent then it becomes a problem. If noone actually follows the guides (apart from my family Fascist Grand Council) what's the point of having them, since they've acheved nothing apart from one pissed off 16 year old?

Am I the only person who's parents won't let me have overrated games or movies? :rolleyes:

My parents don’t let me get M rated games. Doesn’t effect me too much. I don’t want any. My brothers on the other hand, they whine about it all the time. Little brats.

My parents don’t let me get M rated games. Doesn’t effect me too much. I don’t want any. My brothers on the other hand, they whine about it all the time. Little brats.

It's more irritating when you do want them though :p

My mum's PMT prevents me from whining.

The ESRB ratings are now extremely bloated. Halo 2 probably could have been rated T, although maybe the language and the blood stepped it over. But nowadays, anything that's not either sports or geared specifically toward children is rated T or higher. Super Smash Bros. Melee received a T rating, and that's just cartoon animals htting each other. Five year olds watch that routinely every saturday morning. I don't even know about Call of Duty receiving a T rating. Sure it's shooting people up, but they were Nazis, and the people shooting them up were the heroes. It wasn't graphic at all either. The grassroots groups have put tons of pressure on the Ratings Board because of all the deaths supposedly linked to video games, and the ESRB hast to take the caution route to avoid possible legal action(you can get sued for anything these days). All at the expense of the gamers forced to wait however many years to play a game because their parents actually pay attention. In closing, it's the soccer moms' fault.

I dont have a problem with anything that gives consumers more information about the contents of the product they are considering before they buy it. It isnt a perfect system, but nothing really is and this one is actually better than the movie rating system employed by the MPAA. Parents shouldnt be expected to play a game all the way through before they let their kids play it. Games these days can provide dozens of hours of unique material and hundreds of subquests. It isnt reasonable to assume that a parent would be willing to explore every nook and cranny of the game before letting their kid play it. Providing them with ratings that tell them what to expect in the game is a great tool.

I think that the ESRB ratings are functioning well as they are, when parents actually go to the trouble of keeping up with the games their children are getting and making the decision, which in my opinion, their obligation anyway, of what is and is not appropriate for their children with the aid of these ratings.