# Video Game Ratings - Flawed?



## Ryukouki (Nov 3, 2013)

​We all know about the video game rating system. In America it is the ESRB system, and in Europe you get the PEGI system. The ratings go from a childhood age to the deep adult only content, and it is very interesting to see how the ratings companies grade games. Having just completed Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney: Dual Destinies, a game that received an ESRB rating of Mature, it leaves me puzzled as to why the game received such a harsh rating in the first place. What I would like to explore at this point in time is whether the system itself is flawed or the whether the system itself is no longer needed. How inaccurate is the system, and does it help anyone nowadays?​​[prebreak]Continue reading[/prebreak]​​I went through and played _Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney: Dual Destinies _for the Nintendo 3DS earlier this week, and left a review about the matter, as linked above. The game received a Mature rating, which cited blood, violence, and suggestive themes as some of the major reasons. This game could have easily been dropped to a Teen rating, but why the mature rating? The rating is so blown out of proportion that it seems almost comical. Blood and violence are central to most of the games in the _Ace Attorney _franchise. Could it be due to the inflated opinions on media violence that plague the United States as of late? Why do these ratings even exist anymore, when the rules are not really followed anymore (at least, where I live, I never see the ratings rules enforced), and why could they be so inconsistent at times? These ratings are very inconsistent nowadays. Comparing _Ace Attorney_ to a game like _Ninja Gaiden_ is like comparing an adult movie to a Disney one. There are also the stray instances where games are underrated, and far more violent than what the rating described.​​We are in an age where everything that we do is competitive. Everyone wants to earn that extra dollar. This ESRB system is so flawed where I am from. I could go to a gaming store for a popular release, and I could find a gaggle of kids that look no older than ten years old, and they would all troop up to the register, and ask for a copy of the latest and most popular shooting game. The employee at the register does not even do his job and warn the children, or ask for an adult. He just sells the game to them; the kids get the game, and the store their money. It is so inconsistent. Gaming has changed a lot since I started playing them, and think about it. The ESRB is a group of people who decide what you should or should not be seeing. You would get hordes of parents who just blindly follow these rules and limit the overall gaming experience that their children would get to play. Are such limitations necessary?​​

_Does the material children should be able to see feel worthy of being censored out?_​​That isn't to say that the entire system is absolutely worthless. I understand that the system is there for a reason. The rating system could very well be looked at as a very broad and loose guideline as to what the game could possibly feature. Maybe I think this due to the fact that I am an adult, myself, and do not have to worry. This could definitely be a possibility that I am willing to account for. What I wanted to get at is that the rating system should not be the only factor that is accounted for in screening games. Gaming is a complex world now. But for the parents nowadays, who seem to cry bloody murder at the smallest thing, it leads to extreme reactions. You can look no further at the plight that is SwapNote on the Nintendo 3DS, which was shut down indefinitely the other day due to abuse of the system. There it goes again, someone is controlling what someone can be viewing. There were so many other solutions that could have been employed, but the path chosen was the most extreme.​​In a broad sweep, is it not fair to allow select individuals to think that they have the best interests for children and for gamers alike? Let's ask a question. If you are under eighteen years old, and you see a website that asks you to put in your birthday, do you turn around and run when you are confronted with that? Do you or your parents employ parental controls on consoles to restrict gaming? That is what I am talking about when I say that these ratings really do not matter to people as much anymore. Do people still follow these ratings to a religious extent? Sure, there can be people out there still. But should we as gamers be in agreement that the rating system in general is just inconsistent and flawed? Do you guys agree that the system can change? Do you guys think that there are limitations as to where the lines of ratings are drawn? Chime off below!​


----------



## calmwaters (Nov 3, 2013)

The system has changed. We're not running on ESRB ratings anymore; we're running on 8.5/9/9.5 ratings from game magazines. Is it any wonder that a 10 year old *can* go into a game store and buy a Mature rated game? Shit, I know I'm a minority, but that is so fucking stupid. And parents clamor for legislation to curb the violence that their kids experience, a job the ESRB was *clearly* designed for.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 3, 2013)

calmwaters said:


> The system has changed. We're not running on ESRB ratings anymore; we're running on 8.5/9/9.5 ratings from game magazines. Is it any wonder that a 10 year old *can* go into a game store and buy a Mature rated game? Shit, I know I'm a minority, but that is so fucking stupid. And parents clamor for legislation to curb the violence that their kids experience, a job the ESRB was *clearly* designed for.


 

That's a fair point, but those 8.5-9.5 scores themselves are _fundamentally _flawed, so to speak, as we are very well aware of.  I find it ridiculous that people cry for more legislation, but when the legislation technically exists no one does anything about it.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Nov 3, 2013)

Rating system is more or less, a reference guide for parents. It does not mean absolute categorization. People should use it as a reference, but not sole reason to determine.

In response to _Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney: Dual Destinies, _you have to admit the tone and plot of this game are much darker than previous titles. Animations in this game is probably what got the game a M rating.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 3, 2013)

trumpet-205 said:


> Rating system is more or less, a reference guide for parents. It does not mean absolute categorization. People should use it as a reference, but not sole reason to determine.
> 
> In response to _Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney: Dual Destinies, _you have to admit the tone and plot of this game are much darker than previous titles. Animations in this game is probably what got the game a M rating.


 

Oh, it's definitely a lot darker. The crimes were a tad more brutal, and the tone was "lacking in cheeriness" that I've seen in earlier titles. As for the rating system, it's very interesting how I see parents follow that guide to the letter. :/


----------



## BlackWizzard17 (Nov 3, 2013)

I find this to some point useful.
There where some cases where bullying, or death from from kids to another has been blamed for playing violent video games.
See what they don't understand is that there is a rating on the box so its not the people who make the games fault its the parents of the children s fault.

 of course because of this there are many things that are being controlled on what we watch or play, such as the swapnote example. What people do on there is what they do because its what they bought, a system with all those rights. Of course ignorant stuff like that is stupid but they set them self's up the minute they added drawings instead of typing and made it worse and called it child appropriate. 
I totally agree with what your saying though and it makes sense that there is some sort of flaw in the system.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 3, 2013)

BlackWizzard17 said:


> I find this to some point useful.
> There where some cases where bullying, or death from from kids to another has been blamed for playing violent video games.
> See what they don't understand is that there is a rating on the box so its not the people who make the games fault its the parents of the children s fault.
> 
> ...


 

Blaming on violent video games alone is just silly, though. :/ There's so much complexity into that issue due to a multitude of factors. And yeah, Swapnote was just trouble waiting to happen.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Nov 3, 2013)

I hear 8 year old sounding little shitheads on GTA V Online and Call of Duty. I'm pretty sure parents told ESRB to go fuck themselves a long time ago


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 3, 2013)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> I hear 8 year old sounding little shitheads on GTA V Online and Call of Duty. I'm pretty sure parents told ESRB to go fuck themselves a long time ago


 

LOL That's one of the reasons I will never set foot on those games, in an online environment.


----------



## TheBlueSky (Nov 3, 2013)

Not all parents overlook the rating system on the video games. For some people it helps them decide whether a game is suitable for their children. Most of us browsing these forums have deep knowledge of video games; parents are not like that, nor they have the required time to individually research the games. A rating system basically just helps them at a glance and whether they should purchase a game or not.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 3, 2013)

TheBlueSky said:


> Not all parents overlook the rating system on the video games. For some people it helps them decide whether a game is suitable for their children. Most of us browsing these forums have deep knowledge of video games; parents are not like that, nor they have the required time to individually research the games. A rating system basically just helps them at a glance and whether they should purchase a game or not.


 

Which I made a mention of in the article.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Nov 3, 2013)

Short answer: yes, but it does do some good.

Long answer: the ESRB is a flawed system. Some games are given more adult ratings than they deserve (like the Ace Attorney example, although I'm currently on the fourth game in the series, so I can't say for sure), and then there are games that are given less adult ratings than they deserve (shooters, hack and slash, etc.). If I understand correctly, the only ratings that require an adult's permission or an age of 17+ are M and (the almost extinct) Ao. Should little kids be allowed to play Teen games that involve shooting people in the head, blood, murder, rape, etc.? I don't think so, but it's not my choice. It should be the parents' choice, and no one else's. 

Some parents are very strict when it comes to their games and some don't pay attention/care. I can personally vouch for the latter. Back when I was around 7 or 8 years old, I went to the local Gamestop, saw Final Fantasy 7, and bought it. Did my parents stop me? No. Did the clerk stop me? No. Am I now a sociopath? Yes, but Final Fantasy 7 isn't why. Like you said, kids can just walk into a game store, buy CoD 29, and learn to be an asshole through XBox Live.

Every modern TV has parental controls and I'm pretty sure every current gen console does as well. If parents are aware of what their children are doing (and they should be), then they can easily prevent their kids from playing games they they deem to be too inappropriate for their age (or cultural values). I would argue that the ESRB ratings are useful in this regard. Do we need the ESRB? No. But I believe _some_ sort of ratings is necessary. That T or M label is useful when parents are looking to see if their child should play a certain game (even though the game's title and box art work wonders here as well). It's also hurting game development where some developers take out scenes in the game that would be great, but would increase their rating and effectively cut their sales.


----------



## mr allen (Nov 3, 2013)

I always felt that the ESRB was necessary to have but not necessary to follow. We have to remember that different parents have a different belief in whats right and wrong for kids to play. It's really good for a guideline as it does tell parents what to expect. I do agree that they can be really inconsistent but that's a very subjective view.

My younger brother just turned 18 and he wasn't allowed to buy a rated M game because they claimed his id was fake nor would they let my aunt or grandma buy it because "they were buying for him", yet where you live 10 year olds can buy rated M games freely by themselves, I find that sightly funny.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Nov 3, 2013)

mr allen said:


> I always felt that the ESRB was necessary to have but not necessary to follow. We have to remember that different parents have a different belief in whats right and wrong for kids to play. It's really good for a guideline as it does tell parents what to expect. I do agree that they can be really inconsistent but that's a very subjective view.
> 
> My younger brother just turned 18 and he wasn't allowed to buy a rated M game because they claimed his id was fake nor would they let my aunt or grandma buy it because "they were buying for him", yet where you live 10 year olds can buy rated M games freely by themselves, I find that sightly funny.


Where do you live? That sounds like a very conservative place. "Buying for him" should be allowed. It's a video game, not alcohol. Also, M = 17+, so he should have been able to buy those games for a year now.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 3, 2013)

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile...ctive-as-85-of-parents-understand-the-system/

http://www.1up.com/news/ftc-finds-game-ratings-more-strictly-enforced-than-movies-music

The ESRB ratings, on the whole, are helpful and well enforced. I think that any problems with the ESRB are really just problems inherent to any ratings system where a few people try to objectively judge something's content.

(On something of a tangent here, but if ratings interest you at all, you might want to check out this documentary. It's a great watch, and should still be on Netflix.)


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 3, 2013)

Gahars said:


> http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile...ctive-as-85-of-parents-understand-the-system/
> 
> http://www.1up.com/news/ftc-finds-game-ratings-more-strictly-enforced-than-movies-music
> 
> ...


 

Oh, wow, I'll look into that.  Thanks!


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 3, 2013)

I think they're great, but parents seem to ignore it. I'm speaking online community wise, kids shouldn't be on there. I've been playing lots of killing floor lately and I always seem to join matches with 12 year olds playing it like it's call of duty while being out of control vulgar. It's all about maturity though.


----------



## mr allen (Nov 3, 2013)

Pedeadstrian said:


> Where do you live? That sounds like a very conservative place. "Buying for him" should be allowed. It's a video game, not alcohol. Also, M = 17+, so he should have been able to buy those games for a year now.


I feel like this was just Walmart being really anal as there is a Gamestop about 2 blocks away and another supercenter across the street from the Gamestop that would have gladly sold it to him.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Nov 3, 2013)

Only thing that really needs a warning I says would be strong sexual themes and nudity. But I was grown up on violent games/movies/ect. So I guess I really dont understand why parents freak out over violence, if your child kills people because he saw it in a game, I say that's a lie and he just felt he should kill ppl.


----------



## Transdude1996 (Nov 3, 2013)

The whole entire idea of a rating system isn't flawed, how they rate is becoming flawed.

If you go back and watch, say, Disney's animated version of Alice In Wonderland, you'll some obvious smoking in it and if you look at the rating for it, it is rated G. If the movie was released in this day and age, it would be rated PG or, if they were really heavily rated it, PG-13.

Just saying, but ratings are starting to become more of an agenda, like many other things (e.g. that Zelda topic from a while back showed a good example of the article writer pushing their agenda)


----------



## grossaffe (Nov 3, 2013)

because the ESRB came in to have the game industry self-police, we don't have the government getting involved and doing it their way.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Nov 3, 2013)

Transdude1996 said:


> The whole entire idea of a rating system isn't flawed, how they rate is becoming flawed.
> 
> If you go back and watch, say, Disney's animated version of Alice In Wonderland, you'll some obvious smoking in it and if you look at the rating for it, it is rated G. If the movie was released in this day and age, it would be rated PG or, if they were really heavily rated it, PG-13.
> 
> Just saying, but ratings are starting to become more of an agenda, like many other things (e.g. that Zelda topic from a while back showed a good example of the article writer pushing their agenda)


Well you gotta remember that everyone smoked back then. Look up flintones marlboro(?) commercial.


----------



## Lestworth (Nov 3, 2013)

I really dont think the ESRB is flawed to much. Given the panel that discusses and rates these games can be a tad .... over the top. Sometimes games are given an unfair grade though, and on the rare occasion the companies will actually change the content of the game to get a lower ESRB so they can market to more people. At times the ESRB actually influences game designers, and that can be detrimental. Should it be replaced? meh, i mean im sure there is a better method of grading games, so people understand what they are buying, and what to expect. Its not completely flawed to where it needs a massive overhaul either.

I worked retail, and when an underage attempted to purchase a game of M or higher we had to ask the parents, and have them understand what the game had in it. Hell if i go to gamestop, they dont give 1 fuck about who is purchasing it, as long as that money hits the table.

The only real negative thing i can think of that involves the ESRB is that i think Australia suffers from it the most, as games with an extremely high rating, never enters the area. I could be mistaken for another place, but im pretty sure Australia is it.


----------



## emigre (Nov 3, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> I went through and played _Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney: Dual Destinies _for the Nintendo 3DS earlier this week, and left a review about the matter, as linked above. The game received a Mature rating, which cited blood, violence, and suggestive themes as some of the major reasons. This game could have easily been dropped to a Teen rating, but why the mature rating?


 



Spoiler











 
Don't know about you yanks, but here in the great land of Britannia age ratings are taken rather seriously. I used to work at GAME, the issue of age ratings was taken very seriously. If you someone was buying a gaem for someone under the age classification ala parent buying CoD for their 8 year child. We had to verbally inform the parent that the gaem is likely to be inappropriate for their child. If this results in a loss sale,everyone was ok with that as we took the age rating issue very seriously. It didn't stop people buying 15 or 18 rated gaems for their 10 year olds but we fulfilled our responsibility in telling the parent about the gaem being highly inappropriate for their kid.


----------



## spinal_cord (Nov 3, 2013)

Age ratings on games make no difference what so ever. The trouble is not that they aren't enforced properly, but that parents will buy their kids any games they want.
You can'y complain that you're kids are seeing more and more violence when you're the one providing it for them.


----------



## TehCupcakes (Nov 3, 2013)

Flawed? Yes. Useless? No.

Parents need some sort of guideline, even if it is incomplete and somewhat inconsistent. Age also does not indicate maturity; this in itself is enough reason to say that ratings are age _suggestions_ rather than rules. It is up to the parent to decide if the content is appropriate for their child. I lived in a household of parental controls (including internet browsing) so I got very frustrated with restrictions... However, there were certain things I definitely didn't need to be looking at when I was 13. What is frustrating is when ratings are treated as strict rules.

I think a responsible parent should look at it this way: If the game is 2 ratings above my child's age group, they probably don't need to be playing such games. If it is 1 rating above, I (the parent) should take a closer look at why it received that rating and determine if it is right for my kid. The categories listed on the back are useful, but somewhat inadequate as it does not state the severity of each category. This is where sites like http://www.commonsensemedia.org are a great resource. Not only does a parent have a choice to control/know about what their children are watching/playing, but also the _responsbility_ as a member of society. Just because kids _do _go into stores and buy games with mature content doesn't mean they _should_.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 3, 2013)

(again) interesting article. Here's my take on the situation. But please take note that I'm in my thirties and don't have children...so I haven't bothered with any rating in well over a decade.


The way I see it, the rating system is both too strict and not strict enough. In that way, it has the worst of two worlds.

Back when I was young, things were simple. Either you were allowed in a movie or not (the latter was 16 and up). You could purchase dirty magazines or videos when you were 18 or up. That was all there was to it. Was there cheating and "I forgot my ID card"? Of course. But that's inherit to the system.

I can't speak on behalf of ESRB, but PEGI is pushing things. 5 different age systems? All the mentions of what the game contents? Why is that necessary? Am I going to traumatize my 2-year old child if I let him/her play a 7+ game? Of course not. But though the system still sounds simple, it's exactly that that turns the parents of.

Same on the game fronts. I don't know if it's different in other regions, but here, all games are side by side. Mario next to zombieU. It's exactly similar to having the movies Snow white next to hot hooters next door 7, but "because it's games" nobody notices. If there was one age restriction, game stores could just put the mature games in another part of the shop (only accessible with ID). As it stands, it's kind of pointless (divide the shop into 4 or 5 different parts? Yeah...that'll make it easy for customers to find a game).

Lastly: reviews and commercials. Again: if the rating system was restricted to "adults only vs everyone", you could put restrictions in place on where to advertise. Right now, children and teens are bombarded with commercials for games they technically aren't even allowed to play. Is it any wonder that parents don't care what their children play if the adverts themselves are everywhere? (I'm looking at GTA here...lots of posters in the street, but I don't think it even mentions something like "adults only").


----------



## pwsincd (Nov 3, 2013)

My 8 yr old son is as i write this playing Saints Row 3 , i said to him as he mamed some random passer by , son that was a bit harsh and really not a nice thing to do , his comments were , Dad its not real its only a game . I pay no  attention to game ratings , i pay more attention to teaching my kids right from wrong , he knows its game , he knows its not real , we have Zombii U  he wont go near the game , says hes too scared , there hes makin his own judgements  his own rating system of which due to the nature of how i raise him is good enough for me.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Nov 3, 2013)

Gahars said:


> http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile...ctive-as-85-of-parents-understand-the-system/
> 
> http://www.1up.com/news/ftc-finds-game-ratings-more-strictly-enforced-than-movies-music
> 
> ...


 
after watching that documentary, i think we should just be thankful that the ESRB is way it is, because at least it isn't anywhere near as bias and shady as the MPAA

if anything parents _*really*_ need to start paying some goddamn attention to what they buy their spoiled lil' crouch dumplings, and not complain to politicians when they realized they've bought their kids a ultra-violent gore/sex feast that the ESRB was kindly enough to explicitly warned on the box they should have read


----------



## Black-Ice (Nov 3, 2013)

In terms of Phoenix Wright,
This is the first game with bloddy animated cutscenes, I can only guess that to be the reason


----------



## chartube12 (Nov 3, 2013)

pwsincd said:


> My 8 yr old son is as i write this playing Saints Row 3 , i said to him as he mamed some random passer by , son that was a bit harsh and really not a nice thing to do , his comments were , Dad its not real its only a game . I pay no attention to game ratings , i pay more attention to teaching my kids right from wrong , he knows its game , he knows its not real , we have Zombii U he wont go near the game , says hes too scared , there hes makin his own judgements his own rating system of which due to the nature of how i raise him is good enough for me.


 
This is how each person should be deciding if a game is right for their kids. That being said the rating system was originally just a guideline for parents in the US. After all we are all human and capable of making mistakes.

I remember during my first year of high school we talked about the video game rating system. We talked about how it wasn't a law that you couldn't sell M games to minors (at the time it wasn't but many stores had began making their own policies) and how lawmakers were fighting to make such a bill pass. Groups such as PETA (yes they were around even back then) were blaming games for violence. How such a bill could pass but ultimately be useless.

Today's world proves the rating system and it's laws are just used to pass the blame onto the games and their developers. Has history time and again has showed us, parents hate believing it is their fault in the mistakes they have made reasoning children. They will nearly always find someone or something to blame for their kids' bad behavior.


----------



## Arras (Nov 3, 2013)

IMO ratings are necessary as there is no way you can expect parents to know about every game what it contains and whether it's appropiate or not, but at the same time the current system is weird occasionally. Games get given ratings they don't deserve all the time. "steak can be attached to a baby to attract lions" in the original Scribblenauts still stands out.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 3, 2013)

chartube12 said:


> This is how each person should be deciding if a game is right for their kids. That being said the rating system was originally just a guideline for parents in the US. After all we are all human and capable of making mistakes.
> 
> I remember during my first year of high school we talked about the video game rating system. We talked about how it wasn't a law that you couldn't sell M games to minors (at the time it wasn't but many stores had began making their own policies) and how lawmakers were fighting to make such a bill pass. Groups such as PETA (yes they were around even back then) were blaming games for violence. How such a bill could pass but ultimately be useless.
> 
> Today's world proves the rating system and it's laws are just used to pass the blame onto the games and their developers. Has history time and again has showed us, parents hate believing it is their fault in the mistakes they have made reasoning children. They will nearly always find someone or something to blame for their kids' bad behavior.


 
An 8 year old might understand a game like Saint's Row is not real, but it's still de-sensitizing him to human on human violence. In fact fantasy/horror themed games are generally less harmful in this respect as there is more of a subconscious disconnect between what's happening on screen and real life. A developing child's psyche can be permanently altered by profound emotional experiences that they do not have the life experience to qualify.

A rating system is necessary, but the only one I ever saw work somewhat effectively was the British Board of Film Censors rating system applied to games in the early 2K years. It was an established system, widely understood by the public, and had clear legally binding guidelines for retailers and parents/guardians.


----------



## Tattorack (Nov 3, 2013)

BlackWizzard17 said:


> I find this to some point useful.
> There where some cases where bullying, or death from from kids to another has been blamed for playing violent video games.
> See what they don't understand is that there is a rating on the box so its not the people who make the games fault its the parents of the children s fault.
> 
> ...


Its not the violent video game/tv programs/etc that makes some kid's mind bend the wrong way, its how the parents react, or not react, to it.
Hell, my 5 year old sister is quite ok watching something with violence in it without acting it out to others because she knows its fake, its just a movie, those are actors, its cgi, they're puppets made with a computer. She understands this because my parents can explain this to her.
The only things we restrict here are the things we can't explian on her level.
And now she's ahead of most kids when it comes to understanding something.
So in short, it boils down to the parents, not the content of a media.


----------



## Dork (Nov 3, 2013)

emigre said:


> Spoiler


Damnit damnit damnit why did I open that spoiler.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 3, 2013)

I think the whole gaming market is flawed at this point. It's all about what game reviewers scoring a game and how much game devs pay to get better scores. No one seems to care about quality anymore. Not to mention no one seems to care about the rating system anymore. 
Since I started working at WalMart, a mother through through my line with two roughly 8 to 10 year old boys running around her. She was buying a pile of M games, which I tried to explain to her the rating system on the game and she was just like, "I don't care, they play worse." I can't even refuse the sale though because she's the one buying the game and there's no penalty to it. This isn't a one time case though, this is several times a day that something like this happens. 
Then to make matters worse, some of those parents actually come back and yell at my manager that I let them buy M rated games. Nothing seems to come from that, they normally get a refund and sometimes have to be escorted out of the store.


----------



## migles (Nov 3, 2013)

in the gta v release week, a console with the game was available to test in a big eletrodomestic and eletronic store, the game was cleary for 18+ but there was a lot of 8 years old kids in there, playing the game and the store didn't "do anything" there was some kids without their parents around, just with their 16 years old brother...


----------



## lexarvn (Nov 3, 2013)

I think that ratings are still useful at least to the extent of differentiating between games < M and games >= M. If the rating of a game is < M, then I generally don't bother to look at the details of the rating, but if the rating is >= M, then I usually go to ESRB's website to look up the details of why it got such a rating. I usually end up buying the game anyways, but there have been a few that I haven't bought because of what ESRB's website told me about the game.
Also if I had kids, I could see it useful to make sure that I only get games with content that I deem to be ok for kids. It would also be nice if it correlated somewhat with the age that can generally handle the game mechanics, sort of like how board games usually have a recommended age.


----------



## J-Machine (Nov 3, 2013)

The problem isn't the ratings board as much as it is the outlets that allow the child to circumvent it. Parent's buying the game, friends who own it, the cashier letting him buy it anyways... it's really a lack of caring tbh. also go online in these "m" rated games and listen. you would quickly see why these ratings are needed. A lot of kids simply aren't raised properly to handle the games they play simple as that.


----------



## chyyran (Nov 3, 2013)

There should be a rating between T and M. There's too much of a large gap there, and games like Dual Destinies, for one, are not on the same level as GTAV. So why should they have the same rating?

The AO rating is utterly useless as it stands, it's barely used, since any game that gets it essentially gets a death sentence. Either utilize the AO rating more, or put a rating between T and M. The AO rating shouldn't be just porn games, it should essentially become the high-end M rating. A game where you're a lawyer solving murders should not have the same rating as a game where you can beat up hookers.

(not that I'm against GTAV, I'd be playing it right now if I had a console . Just pointing out the disparity between the Teen, low-end and high-end Mature ratings.)


----------



## Smuff (Nov 3, 2013)

Judging by the amount of squeaky voiced kids I end up meeting in GTAV I would say it's pretty obvious that a large number of people completely ignore the ratings anyway.


----------



## pwsincd (Nov 3, 2013)

I recall when my son was 3 or 4 getting really distraut when mario DIED and mario LOST A LIFE... mario's dead boo hoo.. ooo  theres a life lesson for ya son , jump that huge gaping chasm , if you dont make it youll be ok , you got more lives    ratings are a guideline at best  , but generally no more than the game title.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 3, 2013)

emigre said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

I guess you can kind of consider that, but it's still relatively "tame," you know? I had a feeling someone would bring that point up.


----------



## mechagouki (Nov 3, 2013)

Ron said:


> The AO rating is utterly useless as it stands, it's barely used, since any game that gets it essentially gets a death sentence.


 
Actually, the truth is quite the opposite, an Adults Only rating generally boosts interest in a game and heightens public awareness of it. It's often used as a ploy to increase sales of lackluster games, and has been a popular marketing technique in Hollywood for many years.


----------



## pwsincd (Nov 3, 2013)

im sure you all recall the incident with the youngster who raped and murdered his mum over the her asking him something or other whilst he played a COD=type game. Does anyone  truly believe that the game he was playing the cause of his rage and his attitude towards his mother. Of course not , it was his up bringing or lack of it.  He prolly woulda bitch slapped his mum for refusing to buy him the game.


----------



## RchUncleSkeleton (Nov 3, 2013)

Someone should go around with a camera and a child and see how many stores will sell the kid a teen or mature rated game. Hell make a documentary about it, have people from all over submit footage. Stores that don't follow the rules shouldn't be allowed to conduct business.  I for one wouldn't allow my child to play a mature rated game that I had no knowledge of, something like Phoenix Wright I would have to play myself before deciding to let a child play it, definitely not a game like GTA or COD. It also depends on the specific childs maturity level and understanding. I do think the ESRB is a decent guide line but I admit it can be somewhat flawed in it's rating system. Then again my child was taught right from wrong and understands that video games are fictitious and have no bearing on reality.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 3, 2013)

mechagouki said:


> Actually, the truth is quite the opposite, an Adults Only rating generally boosts interest in a game and heightens public awareness of it. It's often used as a ploy to increase sales of lackluster games, and has been a popular marketing technique in Hollywood for many years.


 

That's not true in either industry. NC-17 movies can't really be marketed, are shafted by most theaters, and are refused by most retailers; AO games get an equivalent deal. Hell, Sony and Nintendo have outright forbidden AO titles from reaching their systems. For the vast majority of genres, such a rating is not a tool; it's a death sentence. If it was such an effective marketing boost, you'd think that more studios would go after it, rather than do everything in their power to get under it.

There's a reason Rockstar burned through a shit ton of money to revise San Andreas after the Hot Coffee scandal got it slapped with an AO rating. If a juggernaut like Rockstar pissed its pants over the rating, that should tell you something.


----------



## Zeliga (Nov 3, 2013)

In CoD, Squeaker everywhere!


----------



## Fishaman P (Nov 3, 2013)

Game ratings are necessary; otherwise there would have been a shitload of kids who got Conker's Bad Fur Day for Christmas.
They need to do a better job though. Brawl got T... shoulda been E10, since the only reason it was rated that high was for blood on Master Hand when the chains were ripped off.
I don't have a clue why Melee was made T... was E10 not around yet?
Oh, and for OoT's VC rerelease, it should have gotten E10 at the very least. That game can scar children.


----------



## PROTOBOY (Nov 3, 2013)

I remember my old snes Doom red cart that was with Mature ratting .

lol


----------



## DarkStriker (Nov 3, 2013)

Meet Carp!


----------



## cdoty (Nov 3, 2013)

Developer's pretty much supply their own ratings. They have to list questionable material in the game. It's in their best interest, as it avoids the potential of having to send the game through the rating system a second or third time.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Nov 3, 2013)

I don't know about ESRB but I think the PEGI system is pretty good. Not only do you have the rating, but you have helpful pointers as to why it got that rating and why it may or may not be appropriate for your child despite the rating (discrimination, drugs, violence, gambling, etc. I assume GTA gets pretty much all of those ratings, lmao)

I think there needs to be some sort of rating system, but instead of a specific age rating, there could be a system classified by the level of violence, discrimination, and so on, something like what PEGI does, but more specific as to exactly how severe those levels are. For example you wouldn't want to buy your 12yo a game with extreme violence, but a game with mild violence might be fine.
Of course a system like that would only work if parents take the time to look at the individual ratings and judge whether the game is appropiate or not for their child.
Children are all different and are affected by such things at different levels, so a game with a 15+ rating might be fine for one 12yo kid, but might terrify another. Based on that I suppose you could say the system is flawed. It's best if parents judge what's best for their kids by what's on the back of the box, IMO. Preferably do some research beforehand if they are internet savvy.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 3, 2013)

My general misgivings about ratings/censorship (ages are not useful as a predictor for me, what do I restrict and why, what modifiers are there for said restrictions, how harmful are things (generally not very or at all seems to be the general consensus) and if the material is so corrupting are not the review boards going to be corrupted?) are going to make it hard for me to say anything useful. My general policy is usually watch/play/listen to whatever you like (assuming it is not causing unjustified damage to a group), if you do not understand something or want further clarification there are resources and myself available, equally be prepared to answer questions.

However I am curious about a few things. In the UK the age ratings (as in BBFC) are straight up legally enforced (give or take the time they technically fell foul of an EU law on policy making or something) where to the best of my knowledge the ESRB ones are not (though retailers can and do refuse sales) and people tend to get a bit vocal about it otherwise (indeed many of the OMG censorship arguments are about people trying to get them legally enforced, that and "sin tax" type things making up the rest). What are the thoughts of people there?
Opinions may vary by country, personally if I consider the US one to be a reflection of the nation as a whole (as such things should be, or so I am told) then I would be inclined to accuse the US populace of being a bunch of violent, drug averse, prudes with odd opinions on language but that is a different discussion for a different day, there is seemingly a reasonable disparity between what rates in a film world, what rates in a tv world, what rates in music world, what rates in literature world and what rates in game world. How does that happen, sit with people and it is justifiable somehow?

That said about the only thing I really feel the need to headbutt a fool over is the Australian system seemingly purposely working against having an upper rating and getting things banned by default. I have serious misgivings when they get banned elsewhere


----------



## tbgtbg (Nov 3, 2013)

I think ratings should be self applied, like TV ratings, not applied by some arbitrary group of whoever it is the ESRB empowers. Maybe with some sort of oversight board (made up of people actually in the industry)  that could penalize publishers who grossly misrate their games (like if they tried to give a game like GTA a E rating, they could be fined and lose the ability to self rate for a few years).


----------



## DrOctapu (Nov 4, 2013)

It's odd to me that the barely explicit, mod-enabled Hot Coffee mod warranted an AO rating, but the sex scenes in GTA V and full frontal nudity is  just M. The system seems kind of like a joke.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 4, 2013)

I didn't even know what the hell Hot Coffee was until this morning.


----------



## ViRGE (Nov 4, 2013)

Gahars said:


> http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile...ctive-as-85-of-parents-understand-the-system/
> 
> http://www.1up.com/news/ftc-finds-game-ratings-more-strictly-enforced-than-movies-music
> 
> The ESRB ratings, on the whole, are helpful and well enforced. I think that any problems with the ESRB are really just problems inherent to any ratings system where a few people try to objectively judge something's content.


You covered the big item that I was going to include - that on the whole the system works rather well on an objective metric basis - but there's one other item I'd like to throw in with that.

For the matter of Phoenix Wright 5 in particular, it's important to keep in mind that it's a digitally distributed game. Digitally distributed games are evaluated slightly differently than physically distributed games, mostly due to the fact that it would be impossible for every indie to afford a formal rating, and the amount of time it would take to evaluate every last game ever made would border on the impossible. Digitally distributed games are essentially a lower tier of games where the developer/publisher gets to assign their own rating, using a series of guidelines and questionnaires to help them.

http://gamepolitics.com/2012/10/24/...port-digitally-distributed-games#.UIhTXGl270A

Because of this, the rating that Phoenix Wright 5 has is more so Capcom's decision than the ESRB. This isn't a third party assigning an M to the game, this is Capcom deciding on their own (based on the guidelines) that the game deserved an M. Now the ESRB created those guidelines and is responsible for that much, and for publishers/developers like Capcom you want to properly adhere to those ratings so that you uphold the integrity of the system and don't undersell the objectionable aspects of your game. But at the end of the day the game has an M because Capcom wanted it to.


----------



## Ryukouki (Nov 4, 2013)

ViRGE said:


> You covered the big item that I was going to include - that on the whole the system works rather well on an objective metric basis - but there's one other item I'd like to throw in with that.
> 
> *For the matter of Phoenix Wright 5 in particular, it's important to keep in mind that it's a digitally distributed game. Digitally distributed games are evaluated slightly differently than physically distributed games, mostly due to the fact that it would be impossible for every indie to afford a formal rating, and the amount of time it would take to evaluate every last game ever made would border on the impossible. Digitally distributed games are essentially a lower tier of games where the developer/publisher gets to assign their own rating, using a series of guidelines and questionnaires to help them.*
> 
> ...


 
Huh, I never actually knew about that. That explains a lot, actually. Thanks for that!


----------



## CompassNorth (Nov 4, 2013)

I'd like to point out that Shadow the Hedgehog a game where you have guns and shoot people with minor swearing is rated E10 while Viewtiful Joe is rated T.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 4, 2013)

CompassNorth said:


> I'd like to point out that Shadow the Hedgehog a game where you have guns and shoot people with minor swearing is rated E10 while Viewtiful Joe is rated T.


 



Damn, man. They should've called the game "Shadow The Edgehog" because I'm getting cuts just thinking about it.


----------



## tatripp (Nov 4, 2013)

My mom would never let me play M rated games. I had to sneak to my cousins to play mortal kombat. Some parents definitely care even if the rating system is inconsistent.


----------



## Apex (Nov 4, 2013)

ESRB is a rating system, it's not responsible for enforcing anything. That's up to stores. Just like it's up to parents to determine what's appropriate for their children. If the ESRB says there is tobacco use, and I am for whatever reason fundamentally opposed to my children witnessing tobacco use, then the system has done it's job by warning me about what type of content my children are being exposed to by the games they play.

Has the Motion Picture Association of America failed because I saw R-rated films before I was 17? No, because it was my parents decision to allow me to watch those films. They either personally knew the content of the film before giving me permission, or the MPAA succeeded in warning them about the specific reasons the film was rated the way it was.


----------



## CompassNorth (Nov 4, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Damn, man. They should've called the game "Shadow The Edgehog" because I'm getting cuts just thinking about it.



Edge the Shadowhog sounds so much better tho.


----------



## Deleted-188346 (Nov 4, 2013)

Ratings are fine. They're more like a guide than anything. However, it's ultimately it's up to parents to investigate a video game and determine whether it's appropriate for their children. Sadly, parents don't seem to give a fuck these days. If anything happens, they seem to lay the blame on anyone but themselves.

You better believe that when I have children that I'll personally check out each game they ask for. If I doubt that they'll absorb the themes of the game appropriately, then it might be a good opportunity to play the game with them and discuss it with them.


----------



## vincentthegamer (Nov 4, 2013)

Game ratings are just stupid now IMO,people never follow them anymore so why have them?


----------



## chartube12 (Nov 4, 2013)

DrOctapu said:


> It's odd to me that the barely explicit, mod-enabled Hot Coffee mod warranted an AO rating, but the sex scenes in GTA V and full frontal nudity is just M. The system seems kind of like a joke.


 

Ratings criteria changes over the years. For example, The uncut version for robocop where his hands get blown off many years ago was rated R. Newer copies of the uncut can be found with as low as a pg13 rating. Why? Simple as the scene in question, not being realist by today's standards.

The coffee mod did more than activate a cut part of the game. It was modified to remove the blur effect and be slightly more realist.


----------



## Issac (Nov 4, 2013)

I would rather have a completely new rating system. Keep the info-boxes of what the game has: Gore, fear, blood, sex, drug use etc. So that parents (or people in stores) know of the content in the game.  Then it's up to parents to keep the kids from playing it or not, either by not buying it, or using parental locks or whatever. 
BUT I would like the addition of recommended lowest age to play said game, based on the game itself. Is it a complex strategy game? Maybe isn't a perfect fit for 3 year olds, even though it has no blood. Mario? Everyone can play it and enjoy it, even though it can be difficult sometimes. FPS games aren't that difficult to understand. A visual novel with a complex story, maybe isn't for the youngest either.
Basically, an age recommendation for "Will you be able to enjoy/understand it" rather than "oooh booo, it's bloody, it's a no-no".


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 4, 2013)

Issac said:


> I would rather have a completely new rating system. Keep the info-boxes of what the game has: Gore, fear, blood, sex, drug use etc. So that parents (or people in stores) know of the content in the game.  Then it's up to parents to keep the kids from playing it or not, either by not buying it, or using parental locks or whatever.
> BUT I would like the addition of recommended lowest age to play said game, based on the game itself. Is it a complex strategy game? Maybe isn't a perfect fit for 3 year olds, even though it has no blood. Mario? Everyone can play it and enjoy it, even though it can be difficult sometimes. FPS games aren't that difficult to understand. A visual novel with a complex story, maybe isn't for the youngest either.
> Basically, an age recommendation for "Will you be able to enjoy/understand it" rather than "oooh booo, it's bloody, it's a no-no".



Interesting, I wonder how that would play out when games can have an autoplay mode, automatically handle certain features (Total War was and is arguably a "complex strategy game" but a single click can autodetermine battles), the mechanics can be simple but the game can also layer a bunch more on top of things for the story (do you really think everybody that played it "got" Bioshock?) and I am never sure what kids can and can not understand/make sense of (beyond the "children are just smaller, less well mentally formed adults" concept being very wrong). Now there is certainly a merit to your ideas and I would not mind seeing something of it come to pass but there are a lot of questions and problems that would need to be addressed from where I sit before the full version of what you say could even consider coming into effect.


----------



## Issac (Nov 4, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Interesting, I wonder how that would play out when games can have an autoplay mode, automatically handle certain features (Total War was and is arguably a "complex strategy game" but a single click can autodetermine battles), the mechanics can be simple but the game can also layer a bunch more on top of things for the story (do you really think everybody that played it "got" Bioshock?) and I am never sure what kids can and can not understand/make sense of (beyond the "children are just smaller, less well mentally formed adults" concept being very wrong). Now there is certainly a merit to your ideas and I would not mind seeing something of it come to pass but there are a lot of questions and problems that would need to be addressed from where I sit before the full version of what you say could even consider coming into effect.


 

Thanks for your input! It's true that it's very hard to know how it would/should be applied, and which criteria determines what. What I basically got the idea from is board games. They often have recommended minimum ages, based on the difficulty level of the questions in quiz games, complexity of the rules etc. And as always, there are exceptions, that's why I like the term "recommendation", it's never set in stone. Another thing that made me think of this idea several years ago was actually Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Here in Sweden (or all of Europe to be specific) on the box, it says it's from 3 years old. An average Swedish 3yo wouldn't what to do in the game, since we don't learn English until we're 7-8 years old. 

That kids aren't "just smaller, less well mentally formed adults" I know. We're often discussing all kinds of subjects regarding children's mental development in GCP groups (gifted children programme), and at such a young age, mentality is so very individual. (Just as individual as in adults, really, haha). 

Now, 3 year old is maybe pushing it. But when I was between 4 and 5 years old, I played Megaman 2 a lot! I didn't beat it, but eventually I got to the second Wily stage. (with help with the instadeath laser). But I could pick it up and play it, and have fun trying to go through the stages, trying to survive. I also played X-Com when I was 7. Sure I had fun with it, but I mostly built a base for all my cash, pressed the time settings and watched the earth spin. Then Aliens attacked and game over. I had fun, but didn't play it as it was intended (barely played it at all). Maybe it's too advanced for an average 7 year old. 
The same goes for Total War, even if there's a single click battle thing (never played the game). The concept of war strategies, troops, defense, economy etc. might be too much for an average kid to play the game somewhat properly.
Again, that's why I think it would be a good thing to just recommend an age, along with information on the content.


----------



## shadow1w2 (Nov 4, 2013)

The ESRB is rated by overall non parent non gamers randomly that get paid.
They look at a list watch a video and call it done.

We need paid gamers and parents to actually PLAY the games and give them a rating.

Honestly I think its high time a group of gamers and parents get together to give games proper rating.
Heck wasn't there a site that did that for awhile?
Coulda sworn there was a group dedicated to giving proper ratings to games to go along side the "official" ESRB rating (which isn't really accurate truthfully)

Tempted to start my own really, but I'm too lazy da derp.


----------



## Blaze163 (Nov 4, 2013)

I've seen nine year old kids walk out of game stores with the latest Mortal Kombat and GTA games, so clearly nobody actually gives two shits about the ratings any more aside from politicians looking for things to complain about.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 4, 2013)

shadow1w2 said:


> The ESRB is rated by overall non parent non gamers randomly that get paid.
> They look at a list watch a video and call it done.
> 
> We need paid gamers and parents to actually PLAY the games and give them a rating.
> ...



The time investment to actually play the games (main quest, sidequests, end game content...) would be horrendous and nothing would get done.

On "proper ratings" there are various sites that do try to do it or have otherwise tried to call the "family gamer" type thing their niche of choice, I have forgotten most of them as they got boring quite quickly (there is only so many times you can read evidence of how someone is a prude that would absolutely love to live in fantasy 1950's America, which is what I found most of those to be).

You would also have to figure out what you want rated. One of the more amusing things in recent times for me http://gbatemp.net/threads/the-old-republic-gets-gay.340426/ 

Similarly the argument could be made that rating games according to a system is a skill, why would parents and gamers suddenly have this skill?


----------



## shadow1w2 (Nov 4, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> The time investment to actually play the games (main quest, sidequests, end game content...) would be horrendous and nothing would get done.
> 
> On "proper ratings" there are various sites that do try to do it or have otherwise tried to call the "family gamer" type thing their niche of choice, I have forgotten most of them as they got boring quite quickly (there is only so many times you can read evidence of how someone is a prude that would absolutely love to live in fantasy 1950's America, which is what I found most of those to be).
> 
> ...


 
Well wishful thinking mostly.
However a skill can be developed.
You do have a point though but in a perfect world it would be nice if a game could be rated on its full experience than just a set piece.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Nov 5, 2013)

tl;dr the entire thread (like usual lolol), so excuse me if I repeat stuff...

The ESRB ratings, as a whole, are quite useful for parents who take the time to monitor what they buy their kids. I'm sure people have brought up the whole "well I see (or hear) 10 year olds in games like Call of Duty! Obviously the rating system is flawed if kids can play games like this!" thing, but that would be false. The flaw is not with the rating systems, it's with the parents who cave-in to their kid's whining. Luckily, the stores (at least around my area) are very strict with ratings, and won't sell any rated M games to those without an ID, and some refuse to sell T rated games if they're obviously young. The downside of the future in gaming, though, is that digital distribution is getting to be a must-have thing, meaning any kid with their parents credit card info can buy whatever games they please.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 5, 2013)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> The downside of the future in gaming, though, is that digital distribution is getting to be a must-have thing, meaning any kid with their parents credit card info can buy whatever games they please.



Future? Kids can and do download that stuff now. Some said porn drove the internet/new tech and perhaps that was true for a while. Today I would hold it is pirating.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Nov 5, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Future? Kids can and do download that stuff now. Some said porn drove the internet/new tech and perhaps that was true for a while. Today I would hold it is pirating.


 
True, but I was referring more to how this next generation of consoles will be more heavily focused on digital downloads than it is now.


----------



## LegendAssassinF (Nov 5, 2013)

calmwaters said:


> The system has changed. We're not running on ESRB ratings anymore; we're running on 8.5/9/9.5 ratings from game magazines. Is it any wonder that a 10 year old *can* go into a game store and buy a Mature rated game? Shit, I know I'm a minority, but that is so fucking stupid. And parents clamor for legislation to curb the violence that their kids experience, a job the ESRB was *clearly* designed for.


 
I noticed after I wrote that my statement only applies to your first two sentences lol

The problem with game reviews is that the rating system is heavily flawed since every game is a different experience to each person. GTAV has a 9.6 on IGN by the community and Pokemon X/Y got 9.5 by the community or if you want to go with IGN's reviews a 10 and 9 respectively. Can you compare a game like GTA to Pokemon.... no you can't which is why rating games is pointless since there is no clear cut this game is better than this one since there are many factors to reviewing a game. Do you review the game for story? Multiplayer? Only single player? Only multiplayer? Gameplay? There is just too much to give a solid number since games like Battlefield 4 run around with 8/10 yet they mainly discuss the multiplayer rather than the single player. Games are usually never reviewed as a whole either. GTAV was a victim to this it was reviewed under just single player even though multiplayer was right around the corner. Yet games like SimCity are reviewed strictly on how it functions from Day 1 even though there clearly was an overload of users at one time. Same thing happened to GTAV yet people overlooked that problem as they sweep it under the rug yet SimCity gets bashed constantly and plays perfectly now.


----------



## RchUncleSkeleton (Nov 8, 2013)

LegendAssassinF said:


> I noticed after I wrote that my statement only applies to your first two sentences lol
> 
> The problem with game reviews is that the rating system is heavily flawed since every game is a different experience to each person. GTAV has a 9.6 on IGN by the community and Pokemon X/Y got 9.5 by the community or if you want to go with IGN's reviews a 10 and 9 respectively. Can you compare a game like GTA to Pokemon.... no you can't which is why rating games is pointless since there is no clear cut this game is better than this one since there are many factors to reviewing a game. Do you review the game for story? Multiplayer? Only single player? Only multiplayer? Gameplay? There is just too much to give a solid number since games like Battlefield 4 run around with 8/10 yet they mainly discuss the multiplayer rather than the single player. Games are usually never reviewed as a whole either. GTAV was a victim to this it was reviewed under just single player even though multiplayer was right around the corner. Yet games like SimCity are reviewed strictly on how it functions from Day 1 even though there clearly was an overload of users at one time. Same thing happened to GTAV yet people overlooked that problem as they sweep it under the rug yet SimCity gets bashed constantly and plays perfectly now.


I'm not sure you or calmwaters understands the point or this thread, it's about AGE RATINGS, not ratings by IGN and such about how good a game is. When a movie is rated "R" it has nothing to do with the ratings critics give it. The ESRB rates a game and tells people which age group it is suited for based on things like Drug Use, Nudity, Violence and Profanity, while IGN and other review sources rate games on how good things like Graphics, Gameplay, Sound, Story and Control are.


----------



## LegendAssassinF (Nov 8, 2013)

RchUncleSkeleton said:


> I'm not sure you or calmwaters understands the point or this thread, it's about AGE RATINGS, not ratings by IGN and such about how good a game is. When a movie is rated "R" it has nothing to do with the ratings critics give it. The ESRB rates a game and tells people which age group it is suited for based on things like Drug Use, Nudity, Violence and Profanity, while IGN and other review sources rate games on how good things like Graphics, Gameplay, Sound, Story and Control are.


 

Sorry someone replied talking about ratings.


----------



## calmwaters (Nov 9, 2013)

RchUncleSkeleton said:


> I'm not sure you or calmwaters understands the point or this thread, it's about AGE RATINGS, not ratings by IGN and such about how good a game is. When a movie is rated "R" it has nothing to do with the ratings critics give it. The ESRB rates a game and tells people which age group it is suited for based on things like Drug Use, Nudity, Violence and Profanity, while IGN and other review sources rate games on how good things like Graphics, Gameplay, Sound, Story and Control are.


 
That's what I said... numeric ratings have nothing to do with ESRB game ratings... they are two completely different systems...


----------

