is the esrb doing a good job

[purebloodtexan]

If we were the first to think about rating the games by actual age as opposed to age groups, do you think ESRB would take this into consideration?

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by purebloodtexan

If we were the first to think about rating the games by actual age as opposed to age groups, do you think ESRB would take this into consideration?

I doubt we're the first. I'd also be surprised if the ESRB didn't think of it themselves but discarded it for some reason. That's what bothers me: a seemingly obvious change hasn't been used, so why not? I'm wondering what the reason is myself.

[chunky_cheese]

Specific ages would not work because it is far too specific. People mature mentally at different ages depending on what they are accustomed to. Also, boys and girls mature at different ages.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by chunky_cheese

Specific ages would not work because it is far too specific. People mature mentally at different ages depending on what they are accustomed to. Also, boys and girls mature at different ages.

See, there are two reasons that argument doesn't work.

First, it's the same problem as the current system. All the current system is is a set of ages, noted by letters (3+, 6+, 10+, 13+, 17+, 18+). Also, since people mature at different ages, who's to say an 11-year old can't handle a T game, or that the rare 17-year old can?

Secondly, board games have used the system forever and haven't seemed to have any problems. (Ages 10 and up, Ages 12 and up, etc.)

Either way, they're still just guidelines.

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by agent000_77

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!

Here's where you're wrong.

If we had gamers in the ESRB, it would be biased. Biased opinions yield biased results. That's not what a company setting national standards that involve children should have in its staff.

The ESRB's site even says there are ZERO people from or related to the video gaming industry employed at their company.

[Cavernio]

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.

[devonin]

If we had gamers in the ESRB, it would be biased.

And if we have no gamers in the ESRB, it would be ignorant...oh wait.

[Cavernio]

I think the ESRB has it right that they actively don't employ people in the industry, just like it's right for pharmaceutical companies to not be the people publishing the studies about their drugs.

Anyways, Squeek didn't say that there're no gamers in the ESRB, just no gaming industry employees.

[Relambrien]

He said there's no one related to the gaming industry, which I would assume includes gamers.

[Mental Mage]

Ok after reading this "argument" for the past twenty minutes I have come to this conclusion. Squeek has no idea what he is talking about. I have read almost ten posts at least where Squeeky; has made points without evidence. Without experince and without any freaking clue what he is talking about. For the love of SQUEEK! (I mean pete) Have you never played a WWII game at all? Drugs, Violence, GORE, EVERYWHERE, Language everything that happens in a real freaking war is in a WAR GAME! Tell me how body parts flying off of people when a grenade hits is not GORE?! Please and thank you.
(To defend Halo, there is indeed glow in the dark purple blood,{and other neon colors} there are no body parts dismembered. They are no pieces missing (such as heads) no bloody gaping wounds, nothing just dead aliens. How do we know they didn't faint and did indeed from the horror of it all puke... constantly... and are just lying healing there burn wounds. Shut up dude just please at least come back with a real argument)



NOW we can finally discuss the entire reason this thread was made. The ESRB (Which I do not like much) has MANY MANY failings. I am 18 (in twelve days)
therefore by definition "mature". I belive that the ESRB is too strict on most, and not strict enough on others. I admit I don't time nor enough examples to prove this point, however look at the top selling list at any major game website and look those games, play though those games, and tell me they deserved there rating... for at least 80% of them. Then Ill agree with you. Until then the ESRB needs to remove head from sphincter and hire gamers, not "Over zealous soccer moms" not poor immigrants, not illegal aliens, not Uwe Boll, not Jack Thompson; gamers. The ESRB granted was made for helping parents. That is a fact; however the people they have there currently are diptards. What IMO they need to do. Is hire pure gamers, and have a review board of the people they currently have employed. This way games get a fair looking at, THEN after the rating has been tagged on a review board. Plays like a game tester to determine if the rating is appropriate... not three hours. The most effective way of accomplishing this would be to stick gamers from differnt genres so they arn't as numb as the others to whats already been misrated. Such as a RTS player rating a FPS, granted the people working there would have to constantly cycled out and changed in order to prevent becoming numb thereselves.

Well im out of steam for now, however I want to also push the age rating (5+, 7+ etc... and a way to blatently express that there is EXTREME innapropriate content, such as illegal drug use, sex, and or pretty much anything in the recent GTA's {games showing illegal activity in realistic settings with 5 yr olds playing it are going to create thought that this is acceptable... video games are like cartoons and TV to the younger kids, they don't realize it's just a game, the screen said its ok so lets do it, is there mentality.)

Fare thee well
<Mental>

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by devonin

And if we have no gamers in the ESRB, it would be ignorant...oh wait.

If you read my quote from my essay, you'd see there's a huge system of checks and balances.

They're not just going at this blindly.

Also, Mental, that whole argument ended like a page ago. Yeah. Oh, and 17 is the age for "Mature" games. Not 18. 18 is "Adults Only" age. You were legally able to buy Halo anywhere as of last year.

[Meatyguy]

Well... I think that it's kind of dumb for some of the ratings that they have on some games (like Halo). Plus, I see it this way... when they put blood, gore, and other stuff in a game and Make it M+... that just makes EVERY SINGLE teenager want to buy it even more! It's the same with rap CD's or ones that just have the Parental Advisory sticker on it...

[chunky_cheese]

Originally Posted by devonin

And if we have no gamers in the ESRB, it would be ignorant...oh wait.

This is in place to stop people like YOU from throwing a T rating on the Grand Theft Auto series.

And what meatyguy is explaining, about restrictions becoming an appealing taboo in our culture. I don't quite see this as the case, because it is quite easy to get these types of games under the specified age.

Still, when I walk into a store and pick up an M rated game from the shelf, at age 16, and am told that I am not allowed to purchase a game because of my age, I am absolutely appalled that my maturity is questioned.

[devonin]

This is in place to stop people like YOU from throwing a T rating on the Grand Theft Auto series.

And just who are "people like me" Mr Hasty Generlaization? And where did you get the idea that simply because I feel that people who know and understand a product should be involved in examining that product, that I somehow want to assign as low as possible a rating to everything?

I don't quite see this as the case, because it is quite easy to get these types of games under the specified age.

The system should be preventing you from getting these games under the specified age. Your only ways to do so are to find businesses that don't follow rating rules, or finding those over the minimum age who don't follow the rating rules. In either case, while you can certainly get the game you want, you are choosing to go out of your way to ignore an otherwise functioning system.

As gets brought up so many times in this forum: Simply because a system is abusable doesn't mean that system is inherantly bad.

Still, when I walk into a store and pick up an M rated game from the shelf, at age 16, and am told that I am not allowed to purchase a game because of my age, I am absolutely appalled that my maturity is questioned.

Your maturity isn't being questioned at all, and it is silly to think that it is. Store owners are told "This game is for people over age X only, and selling to people under age X will get you in major trouble" At this point their hands are tied.

Just because someone who is 15 knows how to drink responsibly or someone who is 14 has enough experience driving a car on their property to handle a vehicle on the road doesn't mean that their inability to do so legally is a deliberate affront to their personal maturity.

[agent000_77]

Despite "checks and balances" the ESRB "system" is flawed. A new system should invented and ran by GAMERS FOR GAMERS. You may say bias but I believe gamers have a better grasp of what a game is and isn't. Stupid soccer moms...

Until then, just have an older friend or a parent buy you the game. Simple as that.
Yes, its an annoyance, but we haven't invented a

*"Zealous Soccer Mom Destroyer 3000"


*Prices may vary. See..."package" instructions for further details


Oh, by the way Squeek, Mental was just ending the argument on a correct note...you know like a Perfect on FFR.

[devonin]

"I don't like the system, so I'll go out of my way to violate the system, lending credence to the claim that I'm not nearly mature enough to handle these games"

Okay, I see where you're going with that...it just isn't to a very good place.

The thing you seem to be missing is that the ESRB has, at its root, not a damn thing to do with "Gamers" in the sense of the type of gamer you'd want on this new system.

The kind of person who has the wherewithal to contribute to this system is going to be over 18 anyway, and can already qualify to play any game they like.

The purpose of the system is to protect younger children by marking games that are intended for teens and adults as such, to regulate the access of children to offensive content in exactly the same way that other forms of media have rating systems, and in exactly the same way that vices all have minimum ages.

[Squeek]

@Agent000

Ahem.

Gamers will look out for other gamers. They may or may not have any idea of the potential risk involved in rating games when children are involved. Claiming that only a gamer has any idea of what games deserve what rating is just as stupid as thinking only stuck-up soccer moms are employed at the ESRB.

Before you make another stupid argument, I suggest you actually read their website.

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/faq.jsp

This may interest you as well.

http://www.esrb.org/about/categories.jsp

Oh, you mean most of the games that come out of the ESRB are NOT kept away from children's eyes? Unlike half of the movies on the market, which are all rated "R"?

And also, I don't play FFR.

[T3hDDRKid]

Squeek, just so you know, where I live [Michigan], you actually do have to be 18 to buy an M-rated game, even though it is 17+.

At least, that's what Gamestop and a couple other places told me, so I'm assuming 18 is the law.

[Squeek]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

That law was shot down almost two years ago.

[agent000_77]

Exactly, the point is for the ESRB is supposed to be to protect children from games that are a little mature for them. That's awesome...My point is that they are NOT doing a good job of it.

P.S. Some certain Europeans didn't like the way that their country treated their rights. They fought back, they rebelled. Eventually, the rebels moved...We now have America

Okay, I think i am done debating today...You all have a good night.