Should more games be rated AO?

[bdbdbd]

Sqrl said:

To be honest the only problem I have at the moment with an AO rating (other than the problems I have with rating systems) is the fact that it can be the sole decider in a game's success. I find this troubling as a small group of people essentially have been given the power to decide what multimedia content we are getting, at least when it comes to games.  No matter how well intentioned the people, this just fundamentally makes me uneasy and I think it should make any sensible person uneasy as well, just my opinion of course but I feel very strongly about it and I will explain a bit further...

The problem with this particular type of censorship (i.e. "Rating Systems") is evident here, the system by its very nature is asking people (aka the masses) to no longer make decisions about what is too violent, too sexually explicit, etc... for themselves or for their children.  So they have essentially asked us to give control of our sensibilities to a group of people who choose which letter to stamp on a box. 

Like I said, I am sure they have/had the best intentions, but I personally find the very idea of someone even suggesting I should let them make this choice for me is irritating to say the least.  Imagine if you will, you walk into the video game section of a local retail and the clerk walks up and says "Hello, wait right here and I will bring you a list of all the games that suit your tastes and fall in line perfectly with your morales and interests. And I will even sort them in order of how morally repugnant you will find them!".  This is of course absurd because he/she can't possibly know your tastes, interests, and morales, so why then is it any better to have the ESRB do essentially the same thing for you?

At the very least the ESRB is only a guideline, but it frightens me that any parent would make a decision for their child based solely on the information that the ESRB gave it an "EC", "E", "E10+", "T", "M", or "AO".  I hope most people have the sense to know precisely what multimedia content they are allowing their children to consume.

PS - I know keeping track of kids is a fulltime job and not an easy task even when you have the time to devote. No parent is going to be perfect, but all of them should be making every effort. With that said, I don't think the argument that "parents can't control it" applies to this situation because most kids have to play games somewhere and they can't afford games, TVs, and consoles (etc...) on their own.  Somewhere along the way an adult in the child's life is complicit in the purchases, and if that adult is not a responsible person then the question ceases to be an issue of video games as a problem and becomes a question of why is this adult being allowed to make these choices for the child.

Well parents can buy any game they want for their kids (if parents are at least 18). And also i would let the parents judge what type of games fit for their kids. Reason for this rating system is that you have something that you can decide with. If there wouldn't be any rating system, kids could buy any game they want, if they have the money, and parents would buy any game their kids want, unless they at first play it (preferrably 100% thru). There are too many parents at the moment, who a) don't care about the rating b) don't have a clue what the rating is all about c) think that the rating means the level of (intellectual) challenge in the game (like in board games). At it's best, parents even brag how their little 12yo (or even younger) Johns know how to play 18+ rated games. So the rating works as a guideline to parents and a limit to retailers who don't care what they sell and to who. Anyway, there always are things that shouldn't be only in parents control, "it's ok for my 6yo to smoke some pot and use speed".