NationStates Jolt Archive

What are your thoughts on video game ratings.

My opinions

- There should be a ratings system, privately owned and voluntary
- Stores should have absolute right to decide who to sell what to
- "M" needs to be split into 15+ and 18+ much like there is E6 and E10. 17 is such a stupid age. You can drive a car but you can't play GTA?
- The government has zero place in video games. Legislating ratings is a dark path to go down, and researching the effects of video games on children is more wasteful than burning dollar bills (fun fact: Billary Clinton and LIEberman spent 90 million dollars on an earmark for such research)

I think the ratings system should be legally enforced. If you do everything in your power to prevent "objectionable material" from getting into the hands of children, then the anti-game lobby has far less of a case for advocating censorship, which is the far greater evil.

The thing is, right now the anti-game lobby is crowing that the ratings system doesn't work. That's because the ratings system can't work if people don't cooperate with it, and they're keen not to cooperate with it so that they can get legislation passed on something they find personally distasteful (which, to my worldview, is just plain wrong). Legally enforcing the ratings system would force people to cooperate with it, and make it that much more effective.

I do agree that research is kind of pointless from a political point of view (though less so from an academic point of view) because the anti-game lobby has and will ignore any research that says what they don't want.

SNIP

You have one major problem, the ESRB is not run by the government. It is run by the video game industry much the same way that the MPAA is run by various studios.

You have one major problem, the ESRB is not run by the government. It is run by the video game industry much the same way that the MPAA is run by various studios.

I suspect his point is that the gov't shouldn't take over the ratings business, and his primary point is that the gov't has no business telling a store that they cannot sell certain games, but that such policies should be up to the individual retailers. I tend to agree.

As far as I know, the ratings system we have works rather well. There's one change I might make:

The difference between an M game and an AO game is this:

An M game may contain peripheral sex/nudity, but blatant sex/nudity garners an AO rating. "Peripheral" distinguishes between a game containing minor sexual elements, and one where there are blatant sexual elements. If the sex is not a major part of the game, if there is only brief nudity, if it is possible to play through the game without ever encountering it, then it is peripheral. This would give games like Mass Effect and GTA M ratings, because the sex is there, but it isn't major. AO would be restricted to pornographic games.

I'm not sure if a game could reach AO through violence alone. From what I've heard about Manhunt, it might fit the bill.

I wouldn't object to a law making it illegal to sell AO games to under 18s.

What are your thoughts on video game ratings.

My opinions

- Stores should have absolute right to decide who to sell what to

You don't really understand capitalism do you?

I work for Wal-mart, and if Wally's wanted to, they could restrict cigarette sales to 21+. They don't, but it would be within their legal right to do so, why not with video games?

In MN the ESRB ratings are not enforced, a store can sell any game to any person, however, stores still have the right to restrict sales, why? Because it gives parents the right to decide until the child reaches majority, which is very reasonable.

I suspect his point is that the gov't shouldn't take over the ratings business, and his primary point is that the gov't has no business telling a store that they cannot sell certain games, but that such policies should be up to the individual retailers. I tend to agree.

Actually, he also said that no retailer should be allowed to restrict sales.

A concept that has no recognizable merit.

As far as I know, the ratings system we have works rather well. There's one change I might make:

The difference between an M game and an AO game is this:

An M game may contain peripheral sex/nudity, but blatant sex/nudity garners an AO rating. "Peripheral" distinguishes between a game containing minor sexual elements, and one where there are blatant sexual elements. If the sex is not a major part of the game, if there is only brief nudity, if it is possible to play through the game without ever encountering it, then it is peripheral. This would give games like Mass Effect and GTA M ratings, because the sex is there, but it isn't major. AO would be restricted to pornographic games.

I'm not sure if a game could reach AO through violence alone. From what I've heard about Manhunt, it might fit the bill.

I wouldn't object to a law making it illegal to sell AO games to under 18s.

I also wouldn't object to such a legal restriction either, but I know MN doesn't enforce one, thankfully, I think pretty much every store does.

The ratings system, such as it is, works fine for distinguishing between games based on objectionable content. Enforcement of that rating system has gotten a lot more strict now, probably due to public pressure on retailers. I know that Gamestop, at least, requires employees to ask anyone buying a Mature game to show an ID, even if he has to ask a gray-haired old woman to show her driver's license. Apparently, employees that don't ask can be fired simply for not carding someone buying an M-rated game.

Personally, I don't mind games rated AO (video game equivalent of X, I suppose) carrying a legal restriction. The industry seems to be doing quite well producing material around the Teen range, after all.

The government doesn't run ESRB. They do need an overhaul though.
Under 6
Everyone
12+
14+
18+

The government doesn't run ESRB. They do need an overhaul though.
Under 6
Everyone
12+
14+
18+

Hmm, maybe 15+ (that would even out the distribution).

Otherwise, I think I like this scale better.

Video Games are teh eb1l Murder Simulators

*nods*

You don't really understand capitalism do you?

I work for Wal-mart, and if Wally's wanted to, they could restrict cigarette sales to 21+. They don't, but it would be within their legal right to do so, why not with video games?

In MN the ESRB ratings are not enforced, a store can sell any game to any person, however, stores still have the right to restrict sales, why? Because it gives parents the right to decide until the child reaches majority, which is very reasonable.

And the reason stores make that choice is to win over customer appeal thus making more money. Stores do whatever it takes to make money. They will do everything in their legal abilities to make money. I understand capitalism just fine.

The ratings system, such as it is, works fine for distinguishing between games based on objectionable content. Enforcement of that rating system has gotten a lot more strict now, probably due to public pressure on retailers. I know that Gamestop, at least, requires employees to ask anyone buying a Mature game to show an ID, even if he has to ask a gray-haired old woman to show her driver's license. Apparently, employees that don't ask can be fired simply for not carding someone buying an M-rated game.

Personally, I don't mind games rated AO (video game equivalent of X, I suppose) carrying a legal restriction. The industry seems to be doing quite well producing material around the Teen range, after all.

Make A0 18 and reduce M to 15.

A one year age difference is retarded.

The ratings system, such as it is, works fine for distinguishing between games based on objectionable content. Enforcement of that rating system has gotten a lot more strict now, probably due to public pressure on retailers. I know that Gamestop, at least, requires employees to ask anyone buying a Mature game to show an ID, even if he has to ask a gray-haired old woman to show her driver's license. Apparently, employees that don't ask can be fired simply for not carding someone buying an M-rated game.

Personally, I don't mind games rated AO (video game equivalent of X, I suppose) carrying a legal restriction. The industry seems to be doing quite well producing material around the Teen range, after all.

I'm 16, walked into Gamestop, and paid for an M-rated game without even being asked. Of course I have a full beard so that might have made the difference.

People in this part of Florida are so relaxed. They know they won't get fired because they know they won't get caught.

I don't care for the video game rating system per se, either as a player or the parent of a player. I don't like it as a "rating" system because I don't let anyone dictate suitability to me or my son. I tend to prefer a "content advisory." Just tell me there's minor fantasy violence and mild language. My wife and I'll determine whether it's suitable for our kid.

I find the rating system to be rather pointless. I know of no child who has been completely protected from M rated games, and any parent who doesn't know enough about an M-rated game to know why its M-rated should be more involved in their child's life. Any parent who knows why a game is M-rated would know enough to avoid purchasing the game without said rating.

I played Doom as a youngling and I've been corrupted for life, I tell you! :mad::headbang::sniper::mp5::gundge:

:D:D:D

Personally, I just find it ludicrous that a game which involves rampaging around blasting the bloody crap out of everything that moves is somehow more acceptable than a game that involves nudity and/or sex. Such is the screwed up world we live in, though.

Government has no place to tell us what we can or can't view, and only parents have the right to decide that for their children. Scrap 'ratings' altogether and just put content advisory notices on the packaging, as someone above said, and let people decide for themselves.

"M" needs to be split into 15+ and 18+ much like there is E6 and E10. 17 is such a stupid age. You can drive a car but you can't play GTA?

The government doesn't run ESRB. They do need an overhaul though.
Under 6
Everyone
12+
14+
18+

See, I think age limits like this are totally useless. IMO a good ratings system would let the consumer know what kind of content is in the game. Levels of violence, nudity, adult themes, stuff like that. I might be fine with my children playing a violent game, but not with them playing a game with sex. Yet both of those games would earn an 18+ rating. Useless.

See, I think age limits like this are totally useless. IMO a good ratings system would let the consumer know what kind of content is in the game. Levels of violence, nudity, adult themes, stuff like that. I might be fine with my children playing a violent game, but not with them playing a game with sex. Yet both of those games would earn an 18+ rating. Useless.

And yet without an enforced ratings system, your kids could buy it whether you wanted them to or not. Having the content advisory to inform your decision alone would be useless if your decision was never allowed to enter the process (until after the game has been bought and the 'damage' has already been done).

I think that it needs a real revamp.

Halo does deserved "15" Warhammer 40,000 deserved "15" Destroy all humans deserved an "15" The sims 2 deserved a "15" But they decided to group them under "M" and "T" Respectivly. I doubt that they'll change it without a massive movement, but most gamers are old enough, so most gamers won't be writing angry E-mails to the ESRB. I mean... not that I-I do anything like that... *Looks back and forth quickly*

I might be fine with my children playing a violent game, but not with them playing a game with sex.
And I'd be the reverse. I don't mind the kids seeing sex and nudity, but violence is something I'd rather they avoid. After all, I'd prefer they grow up to be strippers rather than gang members.