Yeah. It's not really the ESRB's fault the AO is untouchable, it's got more to do with stores refusing to carry it... and those that do hide it behind the counters like it was "Custer's Revenge" or something.

Mainly, nobody is going to make an AO game because Wal-mart isn't going to carry it. No Wal-mart and your sales are going to be hurting.

Now how Germany and other countries outright ban things via government intervention, now that's wrong.  What's happening with the ESRB and stores is basically just capitalisim at work. 

Yes choose and choose, its like saying to someone who has no money or food you can work for me for a day for a dollar your choice take it or leave it, final result is there isnt really much of a choice. Thats probably a bit extreme of a comparison but you get the point.

Ratings are in place by popular demand, but the fact is they have got too too much power to change things based on a subjective point of view, and ratings policies change all the time. Its a very flawed system and if it were up to me id either replace the system with something less enforcing or remove it alltogether.

Of course thats about as likely as nintendo going bankrupt, but still thats what my vote would be.

If they got rid of the ESRB then the individual stores would end up just hiring people to do a job EXACTLY like the ESRB and the end result will be the same.  AO games won't be stocked in most stores... most stores including Wal-mart = low sales/flop = companies are going to tone down their games after realizing no one will stock them.

Kasz, he really can't draw the connection. I think we should just let him live in his own little world at this point.

@kasz

That may be the case, but thats why i said its not very likely and thats why i suggested that ratings be given in a less enforcing/softer way that wouldnt scare off retailers.

Of course theres no easy solution, but i dont like the way ratings are done currently.

Maybe online downloads will make it easier to sell adult games too, i could imagine a games original content being available online with a modified version in stores, that would be cool too :)

@quiqontcb

No need to be mean, i was just trying to point out flaws in the system and said how id prefer something less forceful, the topic of the thread afterall was wether you believe esrb is really needed and i said no i dont think so.

 I do not mind guns in games but I feel the same way about guns in real life as you feel about guns in video games as in I detest them 

Of course they are needed. A parent shouldn't let their child play Manhunt. I'm not into censorship at all but people should know exactly what it is that they are buying. Think of it the same as movie ratings because thats basically what it is. If you don't mind your kid playing them cool. But if you do it's there for you to read the label.

I think there should be some refinements to the system, but I'd rather have the ESRB as opposed to the government banning games based on what they think is 'excessive content' which is so vague that you could probably kiss any game (and subsequently every other form of media) good bye.

 Well, there is only so many ways to say someone is not grasping the logic of the issue. You complaing about the ESRB censoring, when they are what is preventing censorship. I'm guessing making the ESRB "less forceful" means that you want them to scale back on rating deserving games M or AO, which would make them lose all credibility as a rating system. If they were foolish enough to do that(which won't happen because it doesn't make sense to do that), it would be government intervention time.

The one year leap from M to AO is silly, but isn't that different than movie ratings. The issue with AO/NC17 is that you're basically branding a violent game(like Manhunt 2) as something akin to a hardcore porn movie, while many similarly violent movies are rated R(or M in the game world).

I'm not saying the ESRB is perfect, but it seems what you're arguing is just illogical. They apparently have overstepped their mandate at times, but THAT needs to be corrected...not closing them down, having them give improper/false ratings, or a needlessly complicated system of rated and non-rated copies of games.

@quiqontcb
I understand the logic, what i am saying is that i disagree with it.

I dont think retailers and publishers should be looking to such ratings systems.
I would rather have a less forceful system as it should be consumers who pay attention to the rating not the shops that stock it and the game makers.

I never said they should give improper ratings or anything, though ratings policy do typicaly changes with the times.

You might of seen a lot of people complainning about violent games on the wii are too realistic when you do the actions yourself, whats the next phase of ratings? Rating based on wether a game has motion controls or not?

I might of explainned it badly but my whole point was id rather have consumers tend to the ratings not the businesses involved in gaming as this leads to indirect censorship, which in my opinion isnt any different from forced censorship.

On a side note why are people so distrustful of a government doing it rather then a organisation?