Mnementh said:
It does not matter if it had no effect on you. If it might have an effect on some smaller children, a rating will be applied. The details which leads to what rating differ between the countries, but the reasoning is similar. It might even an effect that is not scientific validated or some, after all ratings are politics too. But this all diverts too much from the topic, my basic point is, that a low rating doesn't really mean a content is intended or suitable for children. Only that it isn''t harmful, however harmful is defined. |
I totally agree. I know it is completely uncommon for a child to see terror as comedy =p
And also yes the lack of rating for some very complex and mature themes is mainly because the kids won't probably even notice or bother with it, so no trauma expected.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
