Should more games be rated AO?

[bdbdbd]

GotchayeX said:

But you need a radioactive rating. There are games that almost all parents don't want their kids playing, and they assume that they're going to be found under the most restrictive rating.

If you get rid of AO, you provide Jack Thompson and those like him a great deal of ammunition. It would be perfectly accurate to say that the "ESRB doesn't think that Halo 3 is any more appropriate for your children than some sort of hypothetical rape simulator".

The whole point of AO is to be a beyond the pale rating that no retailer wants to carry. This allows them to market less vile games under the M rating without the same stigma.

Edit: Basically, you strip the industry of the ability to argue that it can effectively police itself at all.  Many parent will let their teens play Halo, but many wouldn't want them to touch Manhunt.  By failing to rate the two games differently, the ESRB fails to adequately police itself in the eyes of many parents.  

This really does make sense, the ESRB AO-rating does indeed provide safety from people like Jack Thompson, but in the other hand, it also pushes game developers to make as violent game as possible to get the game M-rated, and that's what hurts M-rated games. I think the PEGI-system is much better, it has clear age limits and it doesn't have AO-type of rating, which works as a firewall against Jack Thompsons. Your earlier post was good and i agree in most parts, especially thing you said about parenting, exectly what i meant to say at first place.