Re: is the esrb doing a good job
Specific ages for ratings are bad because they're too restrictive. I rather like the fact that there's a large gap. It leaves more of the choice of whether a game's OK up to the parents during ages where people are basically becoming adults. Everyone's complained about how the rating system's work, and correct me if I'm wrong, but don't games have on their boxes this much info?:
Call of Duty Activision T Blood, Violence Online, Windows PC
It makes much more sense to have a few words describing the nature of why the game is rated T or M to use as a judge rather than have specific ages. You're informing uninformed parents about the games and WHY it's rated the way it is, which is ultimately far more informative and liberal than simply saying 'unsuitable for anyone under age 13'.
If the boxes don't have that much info put on them, then they should, and it wouldn't require revamping of anything, they already exist.
I'm not informed enough about ratings to know if they're correct or not, (they just don't apply to me, I'm old enough with no kids), but the only thing which can come from making the ratings more specific is more bickering about if they're OK. From this thread, nothing appears to be way off, 'cept for North America's issue with sex.
Also, for all you who've said more games should be AO? Whoa, talk about something that'll kill the gaming industry! Retail stores refuse to carry AO games and in Canada at least, the 2 places you buy games are in EB, or WalMart. Giving a game an AO rating is a mark of death to a game. If retail stores would accept AO games, I don't think I'd have an issue with assigning that rating more liberally.
Specific ages for ratings are bad because they're too restrictive. I rather like the fact that there's a large gap. It leaves more of the choice of whether a game's OK up to the parents during ages where people are basically becoming adults. Everyone's complained about how the rating system's work, and correct me if I'm wrong, but don't games have on their boxes this much info?:
Call of Duty Activision T Blood, Violence Online, Windows PC
It makes much more sense to have a few words describing the nature of why the game is rated T or M to use as a judge rather than have specific ages. You're informing uninformed parents about the games and WHY it's rated the way it is, which is ultimately far more informative and liberal than simply saying 'unsuitable for anyone under age 13'.
If the boxes don't have that much info put on them, then they should, and it wouldn't require revamping of anything, they already exist.
I'm not informed enough about ratings to know if they're correct or not, (they just don't apply to me, I'm old enough with no kids), but the only thing which can come from making the ratings more specific is more bickering about if they're OK. From this thread, nothing appears to be way off, 'cept for North America's issue with sex.
Also, for all you who've said more games should be AO? Whoa, talk about something that'll kill the gaming industry! Retail stores refuse to carry AO games and in Canada at least, the 2 places you buy games are in EB, or WalMart. Giving a game an AO rating is a mark of death to a game. If retail stores would accept AO games, I don't think I'd have an issue with assigning that rating more liberally.
Comment