is the esrb doing a good job

[lord_carbo]

Re: is the esrb doing a good job

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]

Re: is the esrb doing a good job

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

That differs from what you said earlier.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

Re: is the esrb doing a good job

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.

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]

Re: is the esrb doing a good job

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]

Re: is the esrb doing a good job

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

Oh, sorry for the straw man.

It was just confusion.

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

And it seems that confusion continues to plague us.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[MixMasterLar]

Re: is the esrb doing a good job

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]

Re: is the esrb doing a good job

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]

Re: is the esrb doing a good job

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]

Re: is the esrb doing a good job

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]

Re: is the esrb doing a good job

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]

Re: is the esrb doing a good job

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

Re: is the esrb doing a good job

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]

Re: is the esrb doing a good job

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]

Re: is the esrb doing a good job

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

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).

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."

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?

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.

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...

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.

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]

Re: is the esrb doing a good job

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/vbz/showpost.php?p=1025934&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).