is the esrb doing a good job

[MixMasterLar]

Squeek, it seems to me that your just being obnoxious.

I applaud the ESRB for putting up with all the idiocy in this country and still maintaining a level of professionalism in their ratings.

I lol'ed at this. The ESRB Let's anything that's said in music (like said in the first few post) go by without anything and then slaps a M on Halo. Halo is better then most every WWII game as far as gore.

Historical games without massive blood and gore deserve a "T" rating because they're intended to be a historical representation of actual events in human history.

Squeek, WWII games arent ment for that. I dont even need a few examples...
but the one line of games that pops in my head are the Medal Of Honor games. From game two, it was a confussing fantasy (Panzernaucker UNLEASE!). BattleField isnt teaching History either and most WWII games I played arent done in line with History.

Flight Simulators aren't just about killing things. Halo is ONLY about killing things. Also, destroying a piece of machinery != killing a living being.

Who's flying that "piece of machinary"? Most Flight sims that have you shoot are WWII era, so dont say a robot is flying it.

No, it's the killing.

First of all, Sonic, Ratchet and Clank, etc. The monsters are robots. Robots aren't people. And in other games like Mario or whatever, you don't really kill monsters. You jump on their heads. They faint. That's not killing. That's removing the threat.

They faint? are you kidding me? they die. you make them into pancakes and they die. Im sure our own mothers have seen Mario and can tell that they die.

Here's the thing about human history. It's real. It happened. Students learn about World War II's violent side in high school. High schoolers are teenagers. Therefore, they're obviously seen as mature enough to play a recreation of what they're learning.

WWII shooters arent a recreation. My father and I have done re-enactments of real events in the Civil War,and know that you need to be alot more strict then any game to be a recreation

Kids aren't playing these games going YEAH YEAH DIE YOU STUPID GERMANS ROFL NOOB. The games are very serious and it's quite obvious the entire time you're fighting for the defense of America.

Yeah they do. and in answer to that post you'll undoubtfully throw my way, I'll give my link of proof as soon as you give yours

Kids have always said things like "Die stupid stickguy" while playing games like Fatal Fury or "Die frickin' mushroon" when playing Mario. It hasnt gotten better since the late 80s my friend.

Do you even know what you're defending in Halo, or is it just about blowing up aliens? Do you even know the name of the planet you're defending? Not unless you've read the books or the instruction manual.

Sounds like your getting short on points. Your defending humans.
edit: by that logic, Pacman is M...

Call of Duty Activision T Blood, Violence Online, Windows PC
Medal of Honor Frontline Electronic Arts T Violence Gamecube, Playstation 2, Xbox
Halo Microsoft M Blood and Gore, Violence Xbox

Our point is that the ratings are off, we can look up what they are ourselves.

The difference between an M and a T is just as I told you. Gore. Halo goes just a step further than the WWII games according to the ESRB.

Yeah, we know. Our point is Halo is the same if not better then other WWII games and that the ESRB is wrong, so saying "The ESRB says" really doesnt do much.

Killing implies gore. These days, if someone dies and there's no blood around them, it's as if they didn't die at all.

Surley you jest. Even 6 year olds think of it has "boom! look mommy, he dead"

Minimal blood in halo? You mean to tell me that every time a bullet hit an enemy, blood did NOT spurt out from the wound?

The WWII games are just as bad, some worst. Halo has almost no blood unless your Neo and slowed down time to observe it.

You sure you're playing 'Halo' and not 'iHola!' ?

I want to know what your playing, really.

Don't know if you noticed, but the other popular "alien killer / shooter" is rated T. I wonder why that is.

PS - It's Metroid Prime.

So the ESRB had someone who knew what he was doing that day. The thread is about if the ESRB is doing their job good enought and the answer is no. games are either over-rated or under-rated (wasnt Feel the Magic a T game? Soul Calibur 3? Tony Hawks' Underground 2?) The ESRB is doing a lousy job. I dont even read the rating and my mom just ask me if a game is good for my brothers to play instead of looking at it.

Squeek, the ESRB is a joke IMO, and most people seem to agree with me.

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by Relambrien

I see what you mean. If it's not a big, eye-catching, short sign, it won't be read. Something like "CAUTION: M-rated games are for players age 17 and up. Information on ratings can be found on the back of all video game boxes" in big lettering on a sign the size of a computer monitor is what you're suggesting, right?

If that's the case, I agree. Anything to further awareness and understanding of the evolution of video games.

Yes, that'd be perfect.

[Squeek]

Again, I hate quote wars. I don't understand why you have to pick apart posts sentence-by-sentence to make your arguments. Just write a solid paragraph.

First of all, rofl. WWII shooters tend not to have any gore or blood at all. Halo, on the other hand, has a massive pile of purple on the ground after every shot you make on an enemy. Oh, that's vomit or something? Not blood? Yeah.

Second of all, Nintendo does not make first-party "E" games that have enemies die. You can even see it in Super Paper Mario. They don't even say the WORD "die" because these games are marketed to children! Death is not something that you are supposed to see in an "E" game. Period. YOU think it's death because you've played too many FPSes and are desensitized to the idea of it. Children don't know what death is until they have a relative or a pet or whatever die, and even then, they aren't told the whole truth. "Fluffy's taking a long nap, sweetie."

Third of all, without the ESRB, Congress and angry parents would have had video gaming banned ages ago. Do a little more research into these things before you write them. The only reason video games are alive and thriving today is because we have a system of regulation. That system is the ERSB.

Also, please tell me all the people who think the ESRB is a joke, because I'd love to hear it. ZOMG HALO SHOULD BE A "T" ROFL LOOK THERE'S NOT A LOT OF BLOOD is not the right answer. You're not looking at it in the right light, which is why you think the ESRB is a joke. You're not an adult and you're not a parent. If you had a son or a daughter, maybe then you'd understand. It's not about sheltering them from reality. It's just about keeping away harmful things.

Case in point: my cousin had a son and he's 6 now. He's really into video gaming. He enjoys the Sonic series a lot, so she bought him Shadow the Hedgehog. After just a little while into the gameplay, she was furious about some of the messages they had in the game and returned it after writing an angry letter to the company.

That's why, even though the Sonic series is rated "E", this one game was rated "E 10+". Though she thought it should've been a "T".

So like I said. Step outside your gamer attitude and see things the way the rest of the world does. Maybe then you'll understand.

[purebloodtexan]

Squeek, one of your main points about blood and gore is that there's usually no blood in WWII games, saying that in Halo, blood spurts out every time you shoot someone. The same happens in the CoD games that I play. Leg, head, or body, blood spurts out with every bullet they take.

[MixMasterLar]

Never played Shadow, but even your cousin thought it was under-rated.

everything else you said is valid execpt for this:

Do a little more research into these things before you write them. The only reason video games are alive and thriving today is because we have a system of regulation. That system is the ERSB.

I know, I want games to be regulated better. you got off on a WWII vs Halo kick and it seems you dont relize that I believe most games are under-rated.

Yes/No answer: Is the ESRB doing a good enough job?

no.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Again, I hate quote wars. I don't understand why you have to pick apart posts sentence-by-sentence to make your arguments. Just write a solid paragraph.

Quoting a specific section of a post makes it easier for everyone to know that you're responding to that section. That way, it's easy to check and see just how relevant the response is to the post itself. Example, this. Your first sentence is "I hate quote wars," which might not be easily remembered by someone reading. By quoting your post here, it reminds everyone that you said this, and says "This is the part of the post the below will respond to." It just helps organization, which is why I do it. I could just as easily write it all together at once, but I want to make sure everyone knows exactly what I'm responding to at any given point in the post, instead of leaving it to interpretation.

Originally Posted by Squeek

First of all, rofl. WWII shooters tend not to have any gore or blood at all. Halo, on the other hand, has a massive pile of purple on the ground after every shot you make on an enemy. Oh, that's vomit or something? Not blood? Yeah.

Actually, I went and checked. Halo doesn't really have hardly any blood at all when you -shoot- someone (unless you're looking for it, in which case it's still somewhat difficult to see), however there is a noticeable amount when someone dies. For this, I'm referring to multiplayer mode since it was the type my brothers were playing at the time when I looked to see how much blood there was.

Originally Posted by Squeek

Second of all, Nintendo does not make first-party "E" games that have enemies die. You can even see it in Super Paper Mario. They don't even say the WORD "die" because these games are marketed to children! Death is not something that you are supposed to see in an "E" game. Period. YOU think it's death because you've played too many FPSes and are desensitized to the idea of it. Children don't know what death is until they have a relative or a pet or whatever die, and even then, they aren't told the whole truth. "Fluffy's taking a long nap, sweetie."

I don't know of anyone who seriously believes the enemies in Super Mario don't die when you jump on their heads, hit them with a fireball, etc. I always knew they died, my entire family always knew they died, all my friends always knew they died...shall I go on? (I know this because I've had discussions with these people about the game in the past, and even the younger children used the words "kill" and "die.")

Oh, and I'll apply this to something else you said. If jumping on something's head and making it into a pancake isn't necessarily killing it, then is the purple goo the aliens in Halo secrete necessarily blood? After all, its only resemblance to blood is the fact that it's a liquid and comes out of a body. Just like the only resemblance to killing in Mario is the fact that enemies are flattened and no longer get in your way.

And for the record, you seem to forget that when you beat King Koopa in the original games, he falls into a pit of lava. Yeah, because that's not dying at all.

Originally Posted by Squeek

Third of all, without the ESRB, Congress and angry parents would have had video gaming banned ages ago. Do a little more research into these things before you write them. The only reason video games are alive and thriving today is because we have a system of regulation. That system is the ERSB.

We're not saying the ESRB is unnecessary or that it's hurting gaming. It's just naive to think that. We're saying that it could be vastly improved, because right now the rating system and society cause a lot of unnecessarily strict ratings, and there are quite a few ratings that aren't strict enough, as well. It isn't working half as well as it could and should be.

Originally Posted by Squeek

Also, please tell me all the people who think the ESRB is a joke, because I'd love to hear it. ZOMG HALO SHOULD BE A "T" ROFL LOOK THERE'S NOT A LOT OF BLOOD is not the right answer. You're not looking at it in the right light, which is why you think the ESRB is a joke. You're not an adult and you're not a parent. If you had a son or a daughter, maybe then you'd understand. It's not about sheltering them from reality. It's just about keeping away harmful things.

So now you're trying to say that everything I say on this topic is worthless because I'm not a parent, and that I can't have an opinion on this? Because that's what it sounds like.

Also, notice how I never said Halo should be a "T." In fact, in an earlier post I explicitly stated that the current rating system pretty much requires it to be an "M." What I want is a more versatile rating system, so that games can be rated "15+" or so, which I believe Halo should be. The current system just doesn't have enough ratings to be as accurate as I would like.

Originally Posted by Squeek

Case in point: my cousin had a son and he's 6 now. He's really into video gaming. He enjoys the Sonic series a lot, so she bought him Shadow the Hedgehog. After just a little while into the gameplay, she was furious about some of the messages they had in the game and returned it after writing an angry letter to the company.

That's why, even though the Sonic series is rated "E", this one game was rated "E 10+". Though she thought it should've been a "T".

Which just helps my argument. You say yourself that she thought it should've been a "T," therefore the ESRB screwed up. Also, if she bought the game for a 6-year old knowing that the rating was E10+, she probably didn't have much faith in the ESRB to begin with. When parents neglect to consider the ratings -consciously-, then that means they don't believe the ESRB is very accurate. That, along with a lack of information, is why I want change.

[jewpinthethird]

I do agree that the system should be changed. I think more cames should be rated AO, and I think the M age limit should be lowered to 15. It's kind of ridiculous having a rating system that goes from All Ages, Teens, 17+, 18+.

Similarly, why have an R rating and an NC-17 rating for movies?

[Squeek]

Again, I don't do quote wars. You may think it's nice, but tell me of a real debate where the opposing side rips apart everything you've said, sentence by sentence, and goes on massive tangents just about that.

You seem to not understand something here. IMPLIED death is different from APPARENT death. In Mario games, the monsters just fall off screen or disappear or whatever. That's it. You don't know what happens to them next. In shooter games, a liquid comes out of every enemy you kill. Whether it's red, green, purple, black, whatever. It's apparent that you're killing them.

I've even got an example. My favorite show, One Piece, has implied deaths. Yet, if you read further into the story, you find out that even those whose deaths were implied did not actually die. Yes, the person in question fell 10,000 meters from the sky. But it's a cartoon, after all. Just like how Mario is a kid's game, this is a kid's show... more or less.

Unnecessarily strict? It's WAY too lenient! A bunch of M games should be AO (GTA, looking at you) and I'm really surprised they aren't. Sure, it's only a year difference in age requirements, but it means restricting sales to places where minors can't get them easily, even if they ask a parent.

The real problem isn't the ESRB. It's the 14-year olds who ask mommy and daddy to buy them Halo or GTA that's the problem.

Oh, and my cousin doesn't have a problem with the ESRB, nor is she irresponsible. She lets him play "E" games and generally doesn't do a lot of monitoring of what's in the games. She was suspicious about the E10+ but allowed him to play it because it was, after all, a Sonic game.

[Relambrien]

EDIT: Ninja'ed again. Need to fix again...

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird

I do agree that the system should be changed. I think more cames should be rated AO, and I think the M age limit should be lowered to 15. It's kind of ridiculous having a rating system that goes from All Ages, Teens, 17+, 18+.

This is what I'm getting at. There's far too much development between ages 13 and 17 to have ratings just for those two and still be accurate.

I also never understood why M and AO both exist. It's just a one-year difference with the same restrictions (unlike movie ratings, as I elaborate on below).

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird

Similarly, why have an R rating and an NC-17 rating for movies?

Well, this is actually probably needed. "R" means that the material is most likely not suitable for children of any age, but parents still have a say and can choose to bring their kids to the movie. NC-17 forbids all children, period. NC-17 is the MPAA's way of saying "We're not gonna take the risk of irresponsible parents letting their kids see this. There is no way someone 17 or under should ever see this movie, so we're just gonna make it so they can't." The R rating is the MPAA's way of saying "We don't think children should be exposed to this, but it's nothing so terrible that parents can't make the decision themselves."

Originally Posted by Squeek

Again, I don't do quote wars. You may think it's nice, but tell me of a real debate where the opposing side rips apart everything you've said, sentence by sentence, and goes on massive tangents just about that.

First, I fail to see how one or two paragraphs at most is a "massive tangent." Like I said earlier, I just do this to help organization. After reading your post, I had to go up to my own and try and figure out just what you were responding to, as opposed to it being right there for me to see.

I'm not saying you have to do a quote war; I just find it easier to understand what people are talking about when they do, which is why I do it. That's it, nothing more. I really don't see what the big problem is, since you can still respond the way you like to. It's not like you have a problem understanding me when I do this, is it?

Originally Posted by Squeek

You seem to not understand something here. IMPLIED death is different from APPARENT death. In Mario games, the monsters just fall off screen or disappear or whatever. That's it. In shooter games, a liquid comes out of every enemy you kill. Whether it's red, green, purple, black, whatever. It's apparent that you're killing them.

It's also apparent that you're killing whatever you stomp on or hit with a fireball in Mario. Just because the game doesn't show the death doesn't mean you don't know it happened. (If you'd like, replace "apparent" with "obvious," "evident," or any other synonym). I mean, you hit the thing with a fireball! Oh, and I just thought of something else. In Mario, when -you- die, you fall off the screen, and you know you died. Thus, enemies falling off the screen means they died too. That's not something people with ages in the single digits can't figure out.

Originally Posted by Squeek

Unnecessarily strict? It's WAY too lenient! A bunch of M games should be AO (GTA, looking at you) and I'm really surprised they aren't. Sure, it's only a year difference in age requirements, but it means restricting sales to places where minors can't get them easily, even if they ask a parent.

And a bunch of M games should also be rated lower; the only problem is that 13 is too low, even if 17 is too high. You also seem to agree that the ESRB is doing a lousy job rating things, since you believe that it's way too lenient as is.

You seem to be failing to understand that I am -not- advocating for a bunch of M games to become T games. I'm saying that because of the way the rating system is designed, a lot of games have an age requirement higher than they should. Many M games are really suitable for ages 15+. Now remember, age 15 is a high school sophomore. If you're trying to tell me that high school sophomores can't handle Halo...

Originally Posted by Squeek

The real problem isn't the ESRB. It's the 14-year olds who ask mommy and daddy to buy them Halo or GTA that's the problem.

Once again, 14 is a high school freshman. I'd be surprised if you could find any significant number of high school freshmen who can't handle Halo (though the number would probably be just enough to warrant Halo being 15+, at which point the number of 15 year olds who can't handle it is ridiculously small). GTA I agree with, however.

Originally Posted by Squeek

Oh, and my cousin doesn't have a problem with the ESRB, nor is she irresponsible. She lets him play "E" games and generally doesn't do a lot of monitoring of what's in the games. She was suspicious about the E10+ but allowed him to play it because it was, after all, a Sonic game.

See? She didn't trust the ESRB rating of E10+, making the assumption that Sonic = for young kids.

Like I keep saying, the current rating system and lack of education about the subject of video games is what's causing most of the problems. Many parents just don't know what the current rating system means, or don't trust it, thinking "My child can handle this, even if they say he can't." If you made the system number-based instead of letter-based (allowing the ESRB to put -any- minimum age number as a rating, as opposed to the specific ratings we have now), not only would it be easier to understand, but it would be much more versatile and efficient.

I'm sure there are at least some parents who think along lines similar to the following: "Well, considering there are only a few ratings, they have to pick the one closest to the minimum age group. So my 11-year old could probably handle this 'T' rated game."

But if you replace that system with a number system, it would go like this: "Hmm, they could have made this an 11+ game, but they didn't; it's 13+. Guess that means it really isn't for 11-year olds."

Then someone who is inexperienced in video games would go like this:

Current system - "What's this letter E? A category or something? Oh well."

Number system - "What's this '10+'? Hmm, oh you know what that's probably a minimum age for playing."

Then those who are well-versed in the rating system would probably know about the changes or understand them immediately anyway. Seriously, give me one reason why the current rating system wouldn't be improved by replacing it with a more versatile number-based system.

Oh and Squeek, like I said earlier, I used quotes to help with organization. I'm sure it doesn't hurt your understanding at all, so why are you making a big deal out of it?

[Squeek]

Ok. So, next time you go outside and throw a fireball at a deer, let me know if it dies, kthx.

Maybe the goomba is just going offscreen to treat his burn wounds?

I don't care if high school freshmen can play Halo without going EWW BLOOD. I care that the game is rated "M" and they shouldn't be playing it. There should not be any 12-year old kids playing Halo 2 over Xbox Live, but there are. Does that mean they're mature enough to play? Heck no! It means they asked their parents and they were either oblivious or apathetic about ratings, so they bought it for them. I'd say maybe 5% of all kids under the age of the rating are mature enough to play these games.

And my cousin does understand the rating system. She knew the game was E10+, which is why she was skeptical in the first place. Once she saw it in action, it confirmed her skepticism, which is why she returned it.

I do agree that the problem is the parents. Whether they're too stupid to learn these ratings or just don't care about them doesn't matter. It's a lack of responsibility on the subject, and I've written a 12-page essay on the matter, which I've posted here before.

http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...4&postcount=55

I also understand that this was written quite a while ago. I have many logical fallacies in my arguments and a lack of direction, but if you take the time to read it, you'll get the general point.

Edit: Here's a snippet about the ESRB:

The ESRB has been another entity heavily focused upon during the entire debate. Some may say they don’t rate accurately and that they are heavily biased. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. The process of rating a game begins with a random anonymous selection of three individuals in the ESRB pool of about a hundred to view the game separately and submit reports without contacting one another. These individuals are required to have no ties to the entertainment industry. Their reports are sent to another individual who compares the three and judges their accuracy based on how similar they are. It is then reviewed and sent back to the publisher to decide what to do about the rating (Price 124).

All of this information is compiled into Monroe Edwin Price’s book The V-Chip Debate: Content Filtering from Television to the Internet, which goes on to show more information about the processes involved during and after the rating. “Submitting companies are required to sign judicially enforceable affidavits attesting to the accuracy of the submitted material. The ESRB...has a range of sanctions to use against companies which fail to provide full disclosure. ... As a condition of accepting an ESRB rating, publishers must adhere to the [International Digital Software Association (IDSA)] Advertising Code of Conduct, which requires them to display the rating ... on product packaging, and to include the rating symbol in all electronic and print advertising, as well as in other consumer marketing material” (Price 124).

[Relambrien]

Can I ask you just one question? It seems that the very root of the confusion is the word "mature."

When you say "mature," what exactly do you mean by that? If someone is "mature" enough to play a game, what does that mean to you?

[Squeek]

It means they understand what's going on (not in cases of difficult plots. Just overall).

Take R-rated movies. Guns, violence, explosions, sometimes even sex. Not something you want to expose to a young teenager in the first place. But in any case, I'm sure they understand guns kill people and all that. But can they differentiate reality from the movie?

Most of the time, when people talk about maturity, it's the ability to distinguish reality from a movie, tv show, or video game.

I pretty much agree with the Wikipedia entry:

Maturity is a psychological term used to indicate that a person responds to the circumstances or environment in an appropriate manner; often this implies a response that is reasoned or learned rather than impulsive.

But I never took the cop-out courses on Psychology, so I'm not too learned on the matter.

[intensez]

I think the ESRB can be wrong sometimes. I mean Shadow the Hedgehog should be rated "T". I know it sounds stupid for a Sonic game to be Teen, but you are using weapons. REAL weapons from REAL life.

When my little brother bought this game, I thought it was fine. I could care less actually. But when I saw guns in the game shooting people, I was laughing because when did a Sonic game come to using weapons? Also, when navigating through the menus it makes like a reloading sound and when clicked, it makes a gun shot. Then again, you are only shooting increative piece of crap enemies, so it doesn't matter entirely.

I thought this was kind of gay either way, but I think it should be a "T". I think any kind of real weapon should be put to a higher rating. Otherwise, I think ESRB is doing fine. I think most of their games are getting the correct ratings. I don't really look into many games, so I'm probably not 100% correct.

[purebloodtexan]

Squeek, in all honesty, it's sometimes okay for the parents do give mature games to their younger children. They just have to make sure that the child doesn't try to turn their video game into reality. My parents made sure it didn't happen, and I understood that it video games are simply pixels on a TV screen, and that it shouldn't be recreated. That being said, I was able to watch South Park at age seven, and played my first M game at atleast eight years old.

[Relambrien]

Alright, that clarifies things.

So basically, in order for someone to be mature enough to play an M-rated game (I'll use Halo as an example since we've been discussing it the whole time), they need to understand that what's going on in the game isn't real.

In the case of Halo, it would mean knowing that killing people in the game is alright, but is under no circumstances allowed in the real world. Knowing that people don't have shields or respawn in 3 seconds, that aliens aren't really going to come and blow up Earth (well, you understand what I mean by this), and things like that.

Essentially, if you can tell that what happens in Halo shouldn't be emulated in life, then you would be mature enough to play it, right? Being able to react reasonably to what's going on in the game?

Well, that further increases my conviction that Halo doesn't deserve to be an M. I don't know any high school sophomores (age 15) who would think that it's alright to do in real life what happens in Halo. I don't know any that go crazy with power or bloodlust when they kill something in a video game, and I don't know any who would be offended by the game either.

You said earlier that only 5% of underage players are probably mature enough to play. This means 95% of underage players, for some reason, cannot distinguish between reality and the game, and for some reason think that what happens in Halo is real.

You do realize you're saying that 95% of Halo players age 16 and below would experience and act on impulses caused by just killing someone in the game, right? That sounds just a little bit ludicrous to me.

[agent000_77]

All i am saying is that ESRB is crap. They judge a game on a 5 to 10 minute trailer from the company. Remember "hot coffee". It was blocked out until someone found out that you could unlock the "mini-game". Then they went all homicidal, banned the game in certain countries, gave it an A0 rating and called it good. WHY? The mini game was not unlockable on the PS2 unless you had a cheating system. On the pc you needed a patch. Most smaller kids don't patch games like that manually. AND what for...the mini game was not even complete, it was missing textures and everything! IT sucked...why? Because RockStar realized that it wasn't worth it. its stupid that they got so much flak...stupid soccer moms, what do they know about video games.

[Squeek]

You would be surprised by that which you do not know.

Also, it's not just going "oh, but I'm not a guy in a MJOLNIR suit killing aliens". You're thinking WAY too literally.

It's a psychological / subconscious thing that goes way beyond what you actually see on screeen.

Edit: It's comments like the above that irritate me the most and put the ESRB in a negative light for gamers.

No, the ESRB employees rating games do not sit with a game for 5-10 minutes. The process lasts several hours.

San Andreas was, in fact, changed just because of that. Because it showed that the code of the game had nudity in it. Even if it wasn't in the main version of the game, the game itself had nudity. That gives it an AO while all other 3D versions of the franchise retain their M (which needs to change).

Relam, if your point is that you can't put Halo and GTA in the same rating, then I wholeheartedly agree with you. If there were to be an increase in the age group for "T" or a decrease in the age group for "M", or a whole new group all together, I'd put Halo in there. However, I'd DEFINITELY bump GTA up into an 18+ group.

[purebloodtexan]

Well, I rest my case: My mom made me understand that the violence in video games in not to be repeated in real life. Not only was it impossible, but I wouldn't even try to repeat what went on on the TV screen.

Maybe it's because I'm a fortunate child. Maybe it's because my parents had 14 years of parenting before my birth. I don't know, but I didn't touch a gun unless instructed to.

[agent000_77]

What!? Your offended by a *little* hyperbole?

Basically, the idea is of ESRB is good. I just don't believe they have or ever will have the gamers best interest in mind. They were made for soccer moms with overzealous view on what is "bad" for their children. That being stated, they are never going to have a lot of support. I agree with lord_carbo on the fact that their system is kinda skewed. If they made it so that gamers themselves helped with the ratings, it might actually be a useful system...I think you underestimate the maturity of a lot of gamers...Game Player Data

How Many Americans Play Games?

* Sixty-nine percent of American heads of households play computer and video games.

Who Purchases Computer and Video Games?

* Ninety-three percent of people who make the actual purchase of computer games and 83% of people who make the actual purchase of video games are 18 years of age or older. The average age of the game buyer is 40 years old.

How Long Have Gamers Been Playing?

* Adult gamers have been playing an average of 12 years. Among most frequent gamers, adult males average 10 years for game playing, females for 8 years.

Will Gamers Keep Playing?

* Fifty-three percent of game players expect to be playing as much or more ten years from now than they do today.

Who Plays Computer and Video Games?






For Computer Gamers...

* Thirty percent of most frequent game players are under eighteen years old.
* Twenty-six percent of most frequent game players are between 18 and 35 years old.
* Forty-four percent of most frequent game players are over 35 years old.

For Console Gamers...

* Forty percent of most frequent game players are under eighteen years old.
* Thirty-five percent of most frequent game players are between 18 and 35 years old.
* Twenty-five percent of most frequent game players are over 35 years old.

What about Women Gamers?

* Thirty-eight percent of game players are women.
* Women age 18 or older represent a significantly greater portion of the game-playing population (30%) than boys age 17 or younger (23%)

How Much Time Is Spent Playing Games?

* The average adult woman plays games 7.4 hours per week. The average adult man plays 7.6 hours per week. Though males spend more time playing than do females, the gender/time gap has narrowed significantly. Whereas in 2003, males spent an average of 18 more minutes a day playing games than did their female counterparts, in 2004 they spent ony six minutes more each day doing so. Females spend an average of two hours more per week playing games now than they did a year ago.

How many Gamers Play Games Online?

* Forty-four percent of most frequent game players say they play games online, up from 31% in 2002.

Who Plays Games Online?

* Fifty-eight of online game players are male.
* Forty-two percent of online game players are female.

What Other Activities are Gamers Involved In?

* Gamers devote more than triple the amount of time spent playing games each week to exercising or playing sports, volunteering in the community, religious activities, creative endeavors, cultural activities, and reading.
* In total, gamers spend 23.4 hours per week on these activities, compared to 6.8 hours per week playing games.
* Seventy-nine percent of game players of all ages report exercising or playing sports an average of 20 hours a month.
* Forty-five percent of gamers volunteer an average 5.4 hours per month.
* Ninety-three percent of game players also report reading books or daily newspapers on a regular basis, while sixty-two percent consistently attend cultural events, such as concerts, museums, or the theater.
* Fifty percent of gamers are regularly involved in creative activities, such as painting, writing, or playing an instrument. In addition, adult gamers exhibit a high level of interest in current events, with 94 percent following news and current events, and 78 percent reporting that they vote in most of the elections for which they are eligible.

Sound just like we gamers need a rating system so that we don't kill people...right.

Info found here.

60% of console gamers are 18 or older
70% of Pc gamers are 18 or older

hmm...considering 18 or older is generally considered adult, don't you think they would probably have a good opinion on what is appropriate for younger kids...so why are the ratings crap? Well, probably because GAMERS...again I must stress GAMERS are probably not all that involved in the rating system.

In other words, IT SUCKS!

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Relam, if your point is that you can't put Halo and GTA in the same rating, then I wholeheartedly agree with you. If there were to be an increase in the age group for "T" or a decrease in the age group for "M", or a whole new group all together, I'd put Halo in there. However, I'd DEFINITELY bump GTA up into an 18+ group.

Thank you! That's what I've been trying to say the entire time.

In a more general sense, I believe that the current rating system puts too many restrictions on the ESRB, which is the reason for a lot of games needing rating changes. If the ESRB becomes allowed to slap any age minimum for their rating, the system becomes so much more versatile and so much easier to understand.

I was just using Halo as an example of the flaws in the system. Even though it probably is appropriate for those under age 17, it probably isn't appropriate for those age 13. However, since it's vastly more desirable to overestimate than underestimate, it had to be rated M.

With a versatile number-based system, that wouldn't be a problem.