ESRB ratings

[lukertin]

We do not need an ESRB to spoon feed parents how to raise their children. What we need are interested, informed adults who can make decisions for themselves. A rating system shouldn't suggest an age. All that a "rating" system ought to do, if anything, is state factually what is in the game, and to what degree, like "Severe violence" vs "Cartoon Violence".

 

Fortunately, the average gamer is about 30 years old now, and that age is climbing. Once this age group makes up the majority, I think that people will agree that we need the ESRB less and less.

Do people actually pay attention to the rating? I'm pretty sure consumers care more about the descriptors that exist on every Rating, like "Sexual content" and "Gore/Violence" "Drug use" "Adult Themes" "Language", and those are the only things I would rely upon in purchasing games for my kids short of actually playing the game myself.

 

But they already do what you suggest so...what exactly is your point?

[brokenergy]

ESRB is alright... if it is consistant across the board in all media. Personally, ratings should be used as a guide rather than something that restricts. There is one thing that bothers me and that is that ESRB are not really the true repersentation of a game and this more has to deal with themes and tropes from the developers than ESRB, but that's another story.

[BlackBaron2]

I'll be honest, I think a system that relies on descriptors and content warnings is a good thing--not in a "think of the children" sense purely, but for people who might be squicked by realistic depictions of blood or enraged by misogynistic themes (I'm looking at Grand Theft Auto and Duke Nukem Forever here) for example. Having ages included also makes sense, since obviously some things are not child-friendly. However, the ratings system needs to be clear and consistent, and not get morality bass-ackwards like it currently does--I'm talking about how ridiculous I think it is that nudity will get a higher rating than a game in which the entire point is fighting, but that's probably another debate.

[bben46]

While I don't always agree with the ratings for particular games, I do think a simple no brainer type easily visible rating system is needed. Not for the person buying the game for themselves as the kiddies will almost always over rate their own maturity. And 'good' parents :rolleyes: should actually do a little research to see exactly why the game has that rating then make their own decision whether their child is mature enough for that game.

 

It is very important for those like grandparents or spinster aunt Minnie who will ask 8 year old little Johnnie what he wants for his birthday and will then blindly buy GTA thinking it's just a computer game what harm could it be. Computer games are for children aren't they?

 

Bt prominently displaying a rating, then listing why that rating was given to the game allows people who are not at all familiar with how computer games have evolved to make a more educated choice in a gift. Of course that means "little" Johnnie might be getting Frogger for his 18th birthday. :tongue:

 

BTW, Frogger does contain 'gratuitous' violence so that may not be appropriate for younger children - Unless you want to teach them to be careful when crossing the road. :thumbsup:

 

And I do have grandchildren - 9 of them from 2 to 14 years old. My 14 year old informs me that GTA, Oblivion and Dragon Age are 'boring'. Fallout3 is kind of OK And Guild Wars is where it's at. :ermm:

[Felscor]

Guild Wars? blah. I've been down that road, won't return.

 

Well if children find games boring unless there is a tone of gore, violence, drugs ect then maybe they should be concentrating on school and education, can be boring but very useful.

[McclaudEagle]

I believe the ratings on games should be advisory rather than an enforceable restriction (to a degree). A child aged 12 should, by then, know right from wrong, and should know what's real and what's fiction. That means the store should not be able to say no to children aged 12+ who want to buy 18+ games. However, I do think anyone under 12 should be restricted.

 

I played GTA 3 when I was young (probably 12-13) and I didn't come off worse because of it. As for the level of reality in war games, they're not really intended to show huge amounts of realism, not because of morals, but because of profit. I can guarantee Modern Warfare wouldn't have sold well, or gained such popularity, if it had shown just how horrible war can be. Sure it contains lots of blood, but blood is a lot different to seeing someone's body blown apart.

Edited October 17, 2011 by McclaudEagle

[marharth]

To be more detailed.

 

I think ERSB is a terrible system as it is now because the ratings are completely stupid. A game can get a M rating simply for having drug references and mentions of sex, while another game can get T even though it is extremely violent. I think a rating system is needed, by I think that the ratings are a bit messed up. I don't think M should be attached to the age of 17 either, should be more like 15. I think that certain emotional aspects should be taken into account more then simply "Violence" or "Drug use."

[Iv000]

ESRB is, how I like to say it, for the weak.

A number cannot tell you how old you have to be to be able to play a game, you have to find that out yourself. Some children/people are more mature then others, and those that are mature enough should be able to find out that this number doesn't mean anything, and is only meant as a suggestion. If you think that a number can tell you if you can play a game, then you shouldn't be playing it, you should wait.

Then there are people that are even older then the ESRB rating, but are not mature enough, though that's another story.

It all depends on the people, not the age.

[draconix]

A rating system shouldn't suggest an age. All that a "rating" system ought to do, if anything, is state factually what is in the game, and to what degree, like "Severe violence" vs "Cartoon Violence".

But they already do what you suggest so...what exactly is your point?

 

My point wasn't about what they should be doing that they aren't, it's what they are doing what I don't think should be necessary: suggesting an age at which point certain things are to be deemed appropriate for a person. When something like this occurs, there is a sort of de facto censorship on the product that isn't necessary. Kids won't be able to buy a game with x, so game developers who were on the fence will stray further away from creating games with x in order to sell more games. Additionally, it's the parent's place to make these decisions, not some arbitrary organization.

 

In addition, I was smarter and more mature at 10 than some 18 year olds I've seen out there. Age does not equal wisdom, maturity, impressionability, or soundness of mind.

Edited October 23, 2011 by draconix