AO is a pointless rating, reserved for pornographic or extremely sick games.

M means you must be 17 to buy and play the game. Kids break the rules, that's not the ESRB's fault, that's the parents and the kids' fault.

Rated R movies are just as bad as M games...kids should not be watching R movies just as they shouldn't play M games.

Most games are just rated too high like halo, which should be Teen at most, while game like Gears deserve a M. The first time i saw the gears game i was shocked at the level of extreme blood and killing in the game, watching you jump on guys heads and then chainsaw them and blood goes all over the screen and the extensive bloody look of the game when you blow some guys head off.

I'm all for games like Gears but their should be a way to tell if the game is going to be like Halo or gears. I would have no problem letting a kid play halo or GTA but Gears just takes it one step farther then any other M rated game i have seen so far.

Have any of you guys seen the uncut versions of Saving private Ryan or Pearl habour, they are very graphic and far worse then even Gears, lets just hope war games don't go to far, when i kill someone i don't want to see their insides slowy fall out from them or see very graphic details of some guys brains on the back of the wall, and i would expect the ESRB to enforce some AO rating on something like that.

 My point is that perhaps it shouldn't be that restrictive, the better to differentiate between "pretty violent" and "OMFG violent".  I agree that there's no point to a rating so restrictive no games get it.   

As lame as it sounds, a sort of 1-10 system of violence would be useful. 1 for simple conflict, 10 for ripping off heads...but that's complicated and too hard to implement.

AO means the game can't be released in the States unless its through the Xbox 360.

Eh, I agree with the AO is pointless. M in general is "Adults only". If you are a parent want to let your kid play a Mature or Adult Only type game it should be up to you to research how much gore is in it whether it's a Diehard or saw. Which more parents might do instead of just blank stamping everything because it's not "AO."

I mean right on the ESRB website you can find out why a game was ranked how it was. That should tell you about all you need to know.

After thinking about it, I guess it's pretty obvious that Nintendo and Sony have chosen option 3 from the OP -- radioactive beyond redemption -- by stating outright "No AO games on our consoles".  

I wonder how long it'll take the ESRB to recognize that fact and kill the rating?  (A really long time.) 

Well, PEGI system doesn't have similar problem, since it doesn't have ratings, which has one year difference. But still the system is basically hypocracy, since you don't really need to lessen the violence to lower the rating. It's enough if you just remove the consiquenses. In example you shoot some guy in the head and his brain flies out, that's 18+ rating. But if you shoot some guy in the head but he just falls down, that's 16+ rating. If you really think it in the way, that what kind of influence it has with kids, thing should be the opposite. Current system teaches that violence has no consiquenses.
Germany tends to ban every game, where you kill people (for example Gears of War was banned), but i think that is a bit too hard.
They should increase the control in selling games to minors and bring to general knowledge that what those ratings means and what are they based in. And the ESRB AO rating age limit should be increased or M rating should be lowered. Or just get rid of either AO or M.

I would honestly like some AO quality games, I think adult content in a few games would be rather spicey and exciting. But unfortunately, that's not realistic and a foolish hope. I imagine they will keep the AO raiting solely as a means by which to show a game has gone too far.

To be honest the only problem I have at the moment with an AO rating (other than the problems I have with rating systems) is the fact that it can be the sole decider in a game's success. I find this troubling as a small group of people essentially have been given the power to decide what multimedia content we are getting, at least when it comes to games.  No matter how well intentioned the people, this just fundamentally makes me uneasy and I think it should make any sensible person uneasy as well, just my opinion of course but I feel very strongly about it and I will explain a bit further...

The problem with this particular type of censorship (i.e. "Rating Systems") is evident here, the system by its very nature is asking people (aka the masses) to no longer make decisions about what is too violent, too sexually explicit, etc... for themselves or for their children.  So they have essentially asked us to give control of our sensibilities to a group of people who choose which letter to stamp on a box. 

Like I said, I am sure they have/had the best intentions, but I personally find the very idea of someone even suggesting I should let them make this choice for me is irritating to say the least.  Imagine if you will, you walk into the video game section of a local retail and the clerk walks up and says "Hello, wait right here and I will bring you a list of all the games that suit your tastes and fall in line perfectly with your morales and interests. And I will even sort them in order of how morally repugnant you will find them!".  This is of course absurd because he/she can't possibly know your tastes, interests, and morales, so why then is it any better to have the ESRB do essentially the same thing for you?

At the very least the ESRB is only a guideline, but it frightens me that any parent would make a decision for their child based solely on the information that the ESRB gave it an "EC", "E", "E10+", "T", "M", or "AO".  I hope most people have the sense to know precisely what multimedia content they are allowing their children to consume.

PS - I know keeping track of kids is a fulltime job and not an easy task even when you have the time to devote. No parent is going to be perfect, but all of them should be making every effort. With that said, I don't think the argument that "parents can't control it" applies to this situation because most kids have to play games somewhere and they can't afford games, TVs, and consoles (etc...) on their own.  Somewhere along the way an adult in the child's life is complicit in the purchases, and if that adult is not a responsible person then the question ceases to be an issue of video games as a problem and becomes a question of why is this adult being allowed to make these choices for the child.