By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - NY Times don't understand the AO rating.

Steve 3.2 on 01 July 2007

I believe Rockstar's new edit of the game will get an AO rating for it's 'sexual' content:

http://digitalunrestcomic.com/index.php?date=2007-06-25

Enjoy!



Numbers are like people. Torture them enough and you can get them to say anything you want.

VGChartz Resident Thread Killer

Around the Network
ssj12 on 01 July 2007
Narfer said:
StarcraftManiac said:

Pfff... ESRB = a bunch of poosies!... They stated that they DIDN'T EVEN PLAY THE GAME!

For god sake... How on earth can u rate a game if u haven't played it?! The most pathetic acting i've seen in the last years!... Screw ESRB... Rockstar/Take2 PUBLISH THE GAME!


I thought that was how ESRB ratings worked though? The game companies send in footage of the most graphic, suggested, and strong language parts of the game. Because I guess it just takes one AO (or M) scene to give the game that rating, making playing it, in a way, unnecesarily.


omg you guys DONT know how the ESRB rates games...

1. Publisher sends copy of product to ESRB to be rated.
2. ESRB pulls people off the street to reviews the game while someone plays it.
3. the scores the reviewers are averaged then measured up to a chart.
4. Based on reviewer averaged scores games are given a rating.

 that is how the ESRB does their ratings. if a game gets an AO its because the group rating the game disagreed with the content and marked it high in their personal ratings causing the average to be high.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
KruzeS on 01 July 2007
PlagueOfLocust said:

And yes, if you go by the rules of the ESRB ratings, AO is warranted for any games with explicit sexual content. "Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity." That's the very definition of the rating.

I've always had a problem with that definition. Is it "prolonged scenes" of "intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity"; or is it "prolonged scenes of intense violence" and/or "graphic sexual content and nudity"?

To me, the second one doesn't make sense (as it's biased towards violence acceptance), but I'm guessing given american culture that's probably exactly what it means.

PlagueOfLocust said:

Let me ask you; do you think a game with violence and sex is just the same as a game with only violence? I'd imagine the wider variety of negative content just might justify a worse rating; sex wouldn't necessarily have to be "worse" than violence to justify a tougher rating.

I'd say it heavily depends on the level of both violence and sex. A game with strictly more objectionable content always worse, of course - that's pretty much a tautology. But if I were to rate each of the hundreds of violent scenes in a game at 6-8 on an hypothetical 0-10 scale, it's not one hidden sex scene I'd rate 7 that's going to make the game that much worse.

I mean, even R movies are allowed a bit of that... Hostel had far more entertaining sex and nudity than GTA ever will.



Reality has a Nintendo bias.