After witnessing a certain parent walk to into my place of work to purchase GTA:SA for her 3 year old son, to which I said....

"You realize that game is really mature..."

"yeah he plays it with the sound off....."

....Yes we need the ratings so that parents like that aren't so stupid.

ESRB likely should exist... but at the same time, it's all up to the parents.

If the parents want to buy the Kid Manhunt, it's their buisness. Really though if the kid can buy Manhunt without the parents knowing there is something wrong with those parents.

What ISN'T good is how the ESRB has turned into some sort of psuedo censoring board. The "Adult Only" label... or whatever it's called is considered death to a games sales... so rather then accept the rating, crappy games like Manhunt 2 keep editing until they are just underneath that bar.

It's only a 1 year difference between Adult Only and Mature (for 18 and up instead of 17....)

yet they treat it like it's the freakin plague all of the sudden.

Also, yeah I think violent games and stuff can effect you like that... but really it's going to depend on the parenting. Which... if the parenting is that bad to where they aren't paying attention to what your playing and giving you proper context... then the ESRB isn't going to save the kid anyway.

Then they should remove the adult only label, but i think it was originaly put in place for movies that had pornographic content, and retailers dont want to stock pornographic films so their policy is automaticly to not sell it (im not sure of the details but i saw something about that on a documentary).

But there are other controversies such as a film/game gets better ratings when there is no blood, this means (especially in films) you can shoot the crap out of someone yet there isnt any blood, does this send kids the right message?

Film ratings have always been a bit off. Back in the 40s-50s, a movie featuring a toilet would cause a movie to be rated "R". A toilet... How should blood make a difference in rating if a person is getting hacked down with an axe or beheaded. It makes no sense. I was wanting to comment on how it was ridiculous to have both an "M" rating and an "AO" rating, when I consider anything "M" to be anything acceptable to adults, until I saw the post on pornographic material. Sex isn't necessary in games, anyway, though suggestive scenes (like you see in Mass Effect) is understandable if done with purpose.

Rating systems are a joke kids will get to play games regardless of their rating. Older siblings will get the games for them.

 Read the entire thread. Comments like that have already been addressed. The ESRB isn't supposed to police whether or not children actually play games, it's supposed to inform people of the content(often parents buying games for their children).

For responsble perents yes it is probely good but it comes pretty useless when you turn 12 and start buying your own games. Besides is not ESRB just guiding rating anyway it's not like ther is a legal age.

 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.