is the esrb doing a good job

[nwafc]

games like midnight club 3 dub edition remix and ssx3,ssx on tour's(ratedE10+)
language is not E10+. songs like damnit man and more is not for e10 games.

[ToshX]

I've never heard of that song, but it's pretty much based on the words used in it. The ESRB is more lenient with songs than with actual language being spoken by the characters or whatever, though.

I don't think I've run into a rating yet which I thought wasn't strict enough.

[gattsta]

an actually in midnight club 3 dub edition remix, it says the n word about 5-10 times through songs, me and my buddy first found them in 1 of the songs, dont remember though

[purebloodtexan]

Your claim would make more sense to me if you had more than one game as a fault of the ESRB.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

The way society is going currently, games like GTA are gonna be rated "E" before we know it.

[Relambrien]

I was eight when I first heard every cuss word in English, spoken by my classmates. By the end of that school year, not a single one of them fazed me anymore. Using language to rate something anything higher than E6+ is completely and totally laughable, in my opinion. There's the rare case in which horribly grotesque language is used, however, and I can see that resulting in a higher rating.

But if you're 10 and you haven't grown accustomed to most standard profanity, then I'd say you're running a bit late.

Personally, I believe the ESRB is too strict with their ratings. Halo and Halo 2 getting rated M? My brothers and I have been playing since age 13 and never had a problem with it. Nothing in those games came anywhere close to offending me, shocking me, etc. In fact, in another thread I posted a suggested revision to the rating system, in which ratings are divided into 3-year age groups: Early Childhood, 6+, 9+, 12+, 15+, 18+. This makes a lot more sense to me than the big gap between T and M, since a massive amount of growth (both physically and mentally) occurs between 13 and 17.

Or even better, have the ESRB determine the minimum age for the game and just use that as the rating. All numbers from 0 to 21. The more ratings there are, the less the ESRB has to overestimate to be safe. As I said before, Halo/2 were rated M when they shouldn't have been. However, some 13-year olds may find the game disturbing, so the ESRB had to choose the lowest rating where they felt almost all people of that age group could handle the game. If they use a system where they can select any age instead of a select set of ratings, they have more options.

[Squeek]

Halo deserves an M rating. Simple. Using guns to kill things (other than for sport in games like Deer Hunter) = M rating. Even if your subjective experience says you're OK to play it at 13, the objective view is that it's not OK for most 16- children.

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

[devonin]

Our good friend Jack Thompson threatened to sue Microsoft if stores (which have nothing to do with Microsoft for those of you following along at home) violated the ESRB rating on Halo 3 and sold it to underaged customers.

I think the only way for the ESRB to be particularly effective is through education of parents. Stores have been (so far as I've seen) doing a pretty good job enforcing the age limits on M and AO games when underagers come in to buy them, but it is too easy to just get mom and dad to stop at the mall on the way home from work to buy the game, and generally they either don't know about the ESRB, or don't know how the ratings work.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Halo deserves an M rating. Simple. Using guns to kill things (other than for sport in games like Deer Hunter) = M rating. Even if your subjective experience says you're OK to play it at 13, the objective view is that it's not OK for most 16- children.

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

Most WWII games are rated T, and the whole point of those is to kill other humans using guns. At least in Halo there's a "fantasy" sense to it: you're taking down an opponent's shields with laser beams.

By what you're saying, all FPS games should be rated M.

While we're at it, let's get the flight simulators. You're using guns to kill pilots in airplanes after all; we'll give them an M rating too. Oh, and don't forget platformers. Ratchet and Clank and the Jak series? You use guns to kill things so let's slap you with an M rating, too.

Wait, we can even get Sonic. Shadow the Hedgehog revolved around shooting things, so you get an M rating too! And don't forget Final Fantasy, the gunner class is meant to kill things with guns after all!

Honestly, just because a game involves killing things with guns doesn't mean only those 17 and up can handle it. It's ludicrous to think so.

Originally Posted by devonin

I think the only way for the ESRB to be particularly effective is through education of parents. Stores have been (so far as I've seen) doing a pretty good job enforcing the age limits on M and AO games when underagers come in to buy them, but it is too easy to just get mom and dad to stop at the mall on the way home from work to buy the game, and generally they either don't know about the ESRB, or don't know how the ratings work.

A number-based system would help resolve that. Instead of parents seeing a random letter on video game boxes, instead they have a number followed by a plus sign. Should be pretty obvious that's the age group the game is meant for.

[devonin]

A number-based system would help resolve that. Instead of parents seeing a random letter on video game boxes, instead they have a number followed by a plus sign. Should be pretty obvious that's the age group the game is meant for.

They learned G, PG, PG-13 and R (G, PG, AA, R in canada, different elsewhere I know)

The problem isn't an inability to learn how the system works. The problem is an inability to get it into their heads that "Video Games" != "For Kids"

Why do you think so many parents have a dim view of anime? Cartoons are for children. So when they see their kids watching "cartoons" and they are full of violence and sex, it is somehow the fault of the creators of anime because, after all, cartoons are for kids, so this is entirely inappropriate.

Parents need to understand more fully that video games, and animated television scale to the age of the viewer in exactly the same way movies do.

They understand that some movies are for kids, some are for teens and some are for adults, but have this great blindspot when it comes to forms of media that they weren't exposed to themselves at that age.

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by Relambrien

Most WWII games are rated T, and the whole point of those is to kill other humans using guns. At least in Halo there's a "fantasy" sense to it: you're taking down an opponent's shields with laser beams.

By what you're saying, all FPS games should be rated M.

While we're at it, let's get the flight simulators. You're using guns to kill pilots in airplanes after all; we'll give them an M rating too. Oh, and don't forget platformers. Ratchet and Clank and the Jak series? You use guns to kill things so let's slap you with an M rating, too.

Wait, we can even get Sonic. Shadow the Hedgehog revolved around shooting things, so you get an M rating too! And don't forget Final Fantasy, the gunner class is meant to kill things with guns after all!

Honestly, just because a game involves killing things with guns doesn't mean only those 17 and up can handle it. It's ludicrous to think so.



A number-based system would help resolve that. Instead of parents seeing a random letter on video game boxes, instead they have a number followed by a plus sign. Should be pretty obvious that's the age group the game is meant for.

Cartoon violence != realistic violence with blood and 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.

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

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Cartoon violence != realistic violence with blood and gore.

So it's not the killing, it's the blood and gore that you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Squeek

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.

If you think Halo has "massive" blood and gore...well, I just plain disagree. Also, it's alright to kill in human history but not alright to kill in a fictional setting?

Originally Posted by Squeek

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

Flight simulators aren't just about killing things, yes. They're about destroying. Take Ace Combat, where you have a large number of missions where you have to destroy factories, oil rigs, ships, tanks, headquarter buildings, and countless other things containing humans. Either way, you're still killing them.

And Halo isn't any different from a WWII game in its goals. It's still generally get from Point A to Point B, kill anything you have to, perform a task at Point B, and get out.

I don't understand why you think Halo, a futuristic war game, and something like Battlefield 1942, an historical war game, deserve different ratings.

[Squeek]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Just so you know, it's Reach. And most of the time when you're playing Halo's single player (who does that, seriously) the entire time it's all about having fun blowing up aliens.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Squeek

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.

You seem to forget about the organic enemies in each of those games as well. In fact, in Ratchet and Clank you get rewarded for shooting and killing birds repeatedly with a sniper rifle. Don't forget the Protopets and the Tyhrranoids (probably spelled wrong) too. Hey look, the main antagonists from two games were both organic. Well actually, protopets may not have been, but the Tyhrranoids were.

As for Sonic, I'm not talking about the 2D games. I'm referring to Sonic Adventure and onwards, which do in fact have you killing organic creatures.

Oh, and in the original Mario games, Bowser fell into a pit of lava when you beat him. That's not fainting, that's killing.

Originally Posted by Squeek

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.

I still don't understand why a -real- setting of violence is somehow more appropriate for younger teens than a fantasy setting.

Originally Posted by Squeek

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.

And kids aren't playing Halo going "YEAH YEAH DIE YOU STUPID COVENANT ROFL NOOB." The games make it quite obvious that the entire time you're fighting for the defense of the human race.

Originally Posted by Squeek

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.

Just so you know, it's Reach. And most of the time when you're playing Halo's single player (who does that, seriously) the entire time it's all about having fun blowing up aliens.

In fact, I did know the name of the planet. Oh, and about your last point, it's about blowing up ALIENS. That's the keyword. You're not going around killing other humans in the single-player mode (at least you're not supposed to). It's FANTASY (well, science fiction technically...). I still fail to understand why killing other humans is somehow "better" than killing fantasy creatures.

And you don't even have to look at WWII games to find T-rated FPS's. Battlefield 2 is a modern day FPS that takes place during a fictional war. In the same vein, Battlefield 2142 takes place during a fictional war in the future. If you compare BF2142 and Halo, you get the following:

1) Both take place in the future, during a fictional war.
2) Both have you killing things with futuristic weaponry.
3) BF2142 has you killing humans, whereas Halo has you killing fictional aliens. Halo does have you killing humans in competitive multiplayer, however.

As you can see, the two games are very similar.

Just answer me this question: why on Earth is killing aliens somehow more dangerous for young people to be exposed to than killing other humans?

[Squeek]

Well, since I don't care to quote war anymore, I found the answer.

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

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. A few sources from Bungie even go on to say they pretty much knew Halo was going to get an "M" rating even though the first time through, it was passed as a "T".

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Even if your subjective experience says you're OK to play it at 13, the objective view is that it's not OK for most 16- children.

It's obnoxious at any level to assume a view is objective.

Anyway, I disagree with both of you, or at least with Relambrien and partially Squeek. I don't think that an M rating is a bit steep for games just because they're violent. However, I think that it's unfair to categorize it with games that are rated M for sexual content so long as parents can't . For example, when I picked Resident Evil 4 off the shelf while shopping with my mom, she asked if it had any sexual stuff in it. I said no and said it was just really really violent. She let me buy it.

I propose one of two things:

1) There should be a clear distinction that a game is sexual right in its rating. An 'M' and an 'M+S' distinction would do. And the '+S' could be in small subscript.

2) At the counter of every game store (perhaps not by regulation but by practice), there be a simple and concise sign that tells parents to read the back of the box and following, tells the parent to ask themselves if it's the right game for their child.

Either way, parents and people in general are ill-informed too much. And that'd explain why some **** games actually sell good and how kids who get their hands on GTA at ages ≤12 (and coequally how parents don't let responsible kids play amazing games rated 'M' merely for violence which their kids can handle). The latter of course, is more important because it's due to inexcusable irresponsibility.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Squeek

The difference between an M and a T is just as I told you. Gore.

That differs from what you said earlier.

Originally Posted by Squeek

No, it's the killing.

This was made in response to my point that it wasn't the killing, it was the blood and gore you used to determine Halo (and other games involving killing humans) should have an M rating.

So what do you really believe?

(And as a side note, I feel the amount of blood in Halo is really quite small compared to some other games, but that's just my opinion.)

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

I don't think that an M rating is a bit steep for games just because they're violent.

I don't believe I said violence shouldn't be used to determine an M rating; some games really are too violent for younger people. I just don't believe Halo is one of them.

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

However, I think that it's unfair to categorize it with games that are rated M for sexual content so long as parents can't . For example, when I picked Resident Evil 4 off the shelf while shopping with my mom, she asked if it had any sexual stuff in it. I said no and said it was just really really violent. She let me buy it.

Agreed. Sex is a lot more taboo in the gaming industry than violence, so emphasizing whether or not a certain game contains sexual themes or sexually explicit images or scenes would probably be a good idea. Maybe by bolding anything that has to do with sex in the ratings box, or changing the actual rating to reflect it as you suggested.

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

2) At the counter of every game store (perhaps not by regulation but by practice), there be a simple and concise sign that tells parents to read the back of the box and following, tells the parent to ask themselves if it's the right game for their child.

Many stores do in fact have this. I know Best Buy has on the shelves themselves a list of each rating and what it means, and also I've seen at least one sign talking about the ESRB rating system at checkout, and to ensure that your child can handle the game.

I do agree it should be more widespread though.

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

Either way, parents and people in general are ill-informed too much. And that'd explain why some **** games actually sell good and how kids who get their hands on GTA at ages ≤12 (and coequally how parents don't let responsible kids play amazing games rated 'M' merely for violence which their kids can handle). The latter of course, is more important because it's due to inexcusable irresponsibility.

This reminded me of something I had meant to respond to earlier.

Originally Posted by devonin

They learned G, PG, PG-13 and R (G, PG, AA, R in canada, different elsewhere I know)

The problem isn't an inability to learn how the system works. The problem is an inability to get it into their heads that "Video Games" != "For Kids"

In response to lord carbo, I sort of semi-agree. People are ill-informed, true, but at the same time, I agree with what devonin said about how a lot of people seem to have difficulty understanding that video games aren't just for kids.

Though devonin, the ESRB was established in 1994, and the MPAA rating system has been around for nearly 40 years (source: Wikipedia). If the current system was left as-is, it would eventually become common knowledge as to what each rating implies, but considering the speed at which technology is advancing and the lack of speed at which society is, making it as easy as possible to understand the system would help consumers immensely.

And even if the change is unnecessary, I don't see why it shouldn't be instituted. It seems like a better system than the one we have now, as ratings can be more specific. In this case, I don't believe in the phrase "Don't fix what isn't broken."

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by Relambrien

I don't believe I said violence shouldn't be used to determine an M rating; some games really are too violent for younger people. I just don't believe Halo is one of them.

Oh, sorry for the straw man.

Originally Posted by Relambrien

Many stores do in fact have this. I know Best Buy has on the shelves themselves a list of each rating and what it means, and also I've seen at least one sign talking about the ESRB rating system at checkout, and to ensure that your child can handle the game.

I do agree it should be more widespread though.

Hmm, I thought I acknowledged that most places have these charts.

The problem is that it doesn't catch parents off guard, and it isn't concise. That chart is all over the place, and it's too big of a read. I mean, go tell a kid to comprehensively read erowid vaults before he does a drug like marijuana. He might just read half of the page on its effects and quit if he doesn't take it seriously.

What it should be is concise. Something that says right off the bat that 'M' is for mature audiences and the information for individual games is on the back. And only that. Parents do not see video game buying as a life-changing decision. And it isn't. But never mind the game's quality--it's easy to buy the wrong game due to mature content as easily as it is to avoid buying it because of its mature content.

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by Relambrien

That differs from what you said earlier.



This was made in response to my point that it wasn't the killing, it was the blood and gore you used to determine Halo (and other games involving killing humans) should have an M rating.

So what do you really believe?

(And as a side note, I feel the amount of blood in Halo is really quite small compared to some other games, but that's just my opinion.)

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.

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?

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

I still believe that the difference in ratings between Halo and WWII shooters is context. But nothing says it can't be a mix of context AND gore.

Edit: 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.

[Relambrien]

Edit: Ninja'd. Will reply at bottom of post.

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

Oh, sorry for the straw man.

It was just confusion.

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

Hmm, I thought I acknowledged that most places have these charts.

And it seems that confusion continues to plague us.

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

The problem is that it doesn't catch parents off guard, and it isn't concise. That chart is all over the place, and it's too big of a read. I mean, go tell a kid to comprehensively read erowid vaults before he does a drug like marijuana. He might just read half of the page on its effects and quit if he doesn't take it seriously.

What it should be is concise. Something that says right off the bat that 'M' is for mature audiences and the information for individual games is on the back. And only that. Parents do not see video game buying as a life-changing decision. And it isn't. But never mind the game's quality--it's easy to buy the wrong game due to mature content as easily as it is to avoid buying it because of its mature content.

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.

Originally Posted by Squeek

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.

I beg to differ. BF2 doesn't have blood as far as I can remember (though I could be wrong), as well as some other games. But now I finally understand your point.

Originally Posted by Squeek

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?

I didn't say "minimal," I said "quite small in comparison to other games." Perhaps I should've phrased it better. Yes, a visible amount of blood spurts out from the enemy when you shoot them. However, this amount isn't large, like if you'd dismembered someone. Also, the blood detail is poor enough that it just resembles squares of varying shades of red. You know it's supposed to be blood, but it doesn't really look like it. Mortal Kombat, on the other hand, has massive amounts of blood and gore, much more than Halo.

Not to mention that in the single-player modes, the alien blood is blue. There was a game (I forget which one) that had to change the color of the blood secreted by enemies from red to green in order to receive a T rating instead of M (or something like that), since blue blood obviously means the enemy isn't human. I wish I could provide more information, but unfortunately that's all I can remember about that right now.

Originally Posted by Squeek

I still believe that the difference in ratings between Halo and WWII shooters is context. But nothing says it can't be a mix of context AND gore.

Please elaborate, as I don't fully understand your meaning. Also, you still have neglected to answer my question of "Why should killing aliens result in a stricter rating than killing humans in a comparable setting?" Though now that you've made it clear that it isn't so much the killing as the gore resulting from killing, this question holds somewhat less relevance.