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.
Video Game Ratings - Flawed?
- Thread starter Ryukouki
- Start date
- Views 13,967
- Replies 80
- Likes 2
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.
ratings are a guideline at best , but generally no more than the game title.
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,136
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 39
- Location
- California, USA
- Website
- www.youtube.com
- XP
- 359
- Country
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,959
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 17
- Location
- NIKU!
- Website
- Visit site
- XP
- 541
- Country
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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).
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.
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.
Huh, I never actually knew about that. That explains a lot, actually. Thanks for that!
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.
Similar threads
