lultor said:
quigontcb said:
lultor said:
I vote against ratings, or make them optional and i know in some countries you dont actually have to have them, but if you dont the shops wont sell them so you actually do have to have them.
Also i dont think ANYONE should force censor something out of a game or movie.
If the ratings had to stay, id at least say categorise anything teen+ in the same category and put the rest as universal.
A better system yet since from what i notice the majority of families dont care about ratings they should not even post them on the game but put a notice in the shop and online with a very short description of the content, this could be done by developpers even instead of by a independant organisation. |
The ESRB doesn't censor, though they may overstep the bounds according to some. Retailers have the right to choose what products they carry. Most of them won't carry an AO-rated game. Game companies compromise in order to get their game sold. That's not censorship, because nobody is forcing any content out of their games. They are making business decisions when they remove their own content. Your thougths about making rating optional is silly. Why does it bother you if a game you play has a small rating on the box? If the ratings were optional, what would happen if someone bought a game without a rating for their kid, then that kid let another kid borrow the game? How would the borrowing kid's parents know the content of the game if they were concerned? Your idea for optional ratings would also complicate things for game companies and the retailers that sell games. That's more time and money down the drain for absolutely no reason. The ESRB rates a game, you put the tiny little info box on the game, and then you're done with it. You should really think these things through.... |
Yes but that is still indirectly censoring it, u force someone to change their position by making them loose money if they dont. The reason i suggested optional rating is because most people dont give a damn about the rating anyways and parents can choose to avoid those boxes with no rating or look up what the contents involve in short. It doesnt cost anything to have no rating, it actually only costs to put the rating. This was just a suggestion to make it possible to sell your game without being forced out of the business by retailers that follow everything the ratings board decides. Its such rating systems that forces developpers and directors in films to show their content in a different way then they intended, it might not force them directly but if its going to cost you millions then you have no choice but to bow down to them. |
No, game companies choose what they want to put into their games. If they want to make a brutally violent game, more power to them. If retailers do not feel comfortable carrying a brutally violent game, it is their (key word coming up here)RIGHT to not do so. I wish more retailers would carry an AO-rated game, that way we could have saw what Manhunt 2 was originally intended to be, but I don't begrudge retailers on their right to carry what they find acceptable. Game companies have the right to put just about anything in their games because of the ESRB. Try to understand that ratings are preventing censorship, not actually censoring.
And yes, it would cost game companies and retailers more time and money to carry games with and without ratings. If you really need me to, I can spell out the reasons for you.
