Seriously I don't see any problem with the way the system is now.   AO appears to have turned into a very good ad hoc way of keeping console game makers in line and prevent them from going too far.  Take away the kiss of death nature of AO, by convincing Wal-Mart and other stores to carry them and console manufacturers to allow them on their consoles, and you're likely left with games getting even more violent as game makers would then try to top each other and create controversy in a system with no real limits to stop them.  The way AO is set up now is what is likely keeping the floodgates of truly disgusting violence in check.  The system may not be perfect but I can't see how changing it like some people suggest would be anything but disasterous.

I completely disagree with you Final_Fan,

The point of a rating isn't to rate the "level of violence" or graphic material. The point of a rating is simply to show who the content is appropriate for. You're right, Saw and Die Hard have completely different levels of violence, but that doesn't mean there is any difference in the audiences that they are appropriate for. You are changing ratings into something they are not. All they are for is separating age appropriate content. Past that it's the responsibility of the consumer to know what they are getting. It's not like information is hard to find these days.

Why the hell did this become about the Wii?  Stop trolling you child.

GTA San Andreas was re-rated AO. That version 1 of GTA:SA is worth a decent penny on EBay lol. Thats why on Amazon GTA:SA is called GTA:SA V2. The AO content was removed.

@naznatips - I stated the Wii in my post above.. but was using it as an example for the ManHunt game lol.

In my opinion there is absolutely no reason why any game or movie shoud get a rating above "Mature" or "Restricted" because going past these ratings typically means that you have crossed the line into senseless excess; I will make two exceptions, "Restricted" movies are already too free with graphic violence whereas "Mature" videogames do not give enough freedom in terms of sexual content.

Generally speaking you have two paths when developing a movie/game that will fit into these categories, you can develop the idea in an intelligent well thought out way or you can make it more graphics. Consider Hostel ...

Hostel probably has one of the best ideas to base a horror movie on "If you have enough money there are places which will allow you to do anything" which if it was developed by Stanley Kubrick would have haunted people for generations to come; the unfortunate problem was it was developed by morons who think using make-up to have a girl lose her eye to a blowtorch to the face was a good idea.

Smart people don't need the graphical violence or sex to really push the boundries, they can develop their ideas and get their points across without going to excess; morons need these "tools" and should be punished for being morons.

Yes, but you were contributing to the discussion and using a valid example.  I appreciate that.  Hus was simply trolling.

I've been watching R-rated movies with sex and violence in them since I was 6 years old. I've also played a few M rated games in my day.

I am now 22, and am extremely well-balanced. I personally believe that the influence of media is much less than it is purported to be... or maybe it is just that we have fetishized (actual meaning of the word, not sexual meaning of the word) violence in the media to the point where we can no longer distinguish between the effects of the impact of the media on our culture and ourselves and the impact of our immediate surroundings and ourselves.
When society tells me that a certain age is not 'ready' for some content, i analyze why they are telling me this. Is there anything inherent in sex that would make it inappropriate for people under 18?

One could say yes, and I would agree - sex as a fetish and without foreknowledge and control can be a very bad thing. It can lead to disease, pregnancy, emotional trauma, and more. HOWEVER, a well-adjusted individual who is taught to respect sex as a primal force of life, as something to be honored for its importance rather than desired for its... well, sexuality. Someone who is taught to respect sex certainly can watch a sexual movie or play a sexual game without being adversely affected.

For a great example of the kind of difference I am talking about, I would recommend everyone watch Metropolis (the original, although maybe the themes exist in the anime as well). The exotic dancing scene is amazing, and ties in exactly to the differences between different stylings of sex in the media.

I would also recommend "This Film is not yet Rated" for a great overview of exactly how a ratings system can kill a movie arbitrarily and with little cause. Especially the "Boys Don't Cry" part. The reason that movie was rated NC-17 at first wasn't the *ABSOLUTE WORST RAPE SCENE IN EXISTENCE* [in my opinion]. It's because it showed a woman having an orgasm. Is that right? I think not.

And *that* is the reason I disagree with an AO rating if said AO rating means anything about the availability of the game.

I don't think so.

AO is akin to a 'NR-17' rating in Movies. Gears of War is more like a typical 'M-18' game or a 'R' rated movie.

'AO' should be reserved for games with glaring sexual content and/or violence that is so perverse that it could be a snuff film, i.e. Manhunt 2.

for one the AO rating and the way its seen by the indusrty is BS.

I want AO games i want then in every store. I can buy 300 Fight Club Hostel in BestBuy, why the fuck would they not carry AO games. Damn hypocritical bastards.

Second is quite clear wii fanboys are so brain dead tools they will hate mature games just because Nintendo does not make them and is overall against them ex Miyamoto. Wii fanboys will hate on anything their little console lacks. Online Graphics HDsupport Mature games whatever.

Its called freedom, all games should be allowed.

AO games are not the problem, the way they are handled by the industry and people in general is the problem. Idiot politicians like Arnold are not helping anything either. Neither are the wuss Console makers that wont allow Ao game to be published cause the fear the idiot public backlash.

@Sqrl: I can see what you mean, you're saying that those people who decide what rating each game will have, has too much power. I don't know who rates in ESBR, but game publishers rate their games themselves in PEGI. If they give rating which is too low, it will be changed (only game i recall which rating has been changed was GTA:SA, from 16+ to 18+) and every country can give the game own rating or even ban the game. Usually rating is checked if people complain about the content being at the level the rating says. Anyway, since ESRB gives the US rating, you would think that it's not very clever to not being fair when giving the rating, think about the possible multi-billion lawsuits.

At the moment it may be bad parenting if kids get their hands on games meant for mature audience, but without ratings, non-gaming parents wouldn't have anything from which they would know that will the game fit for their kids. Of course you can check that what kind of game a certain game is, but you really do have to do a lot of research, since previews usually doesn't have the amount of non-appropriate content reviewed.
Also, without ratings, the games industry, as it is at the moment, would be dead since games would a)have a reputation of violence etc. (just like J. Thompson would like) b)all be for everyone so that parents could buy games for "hardcore gamers".

@JustBen: I was being a little sarcastic, no other country bans as much games as Germany.

@Hus: As a gaming site, VGChartz seems to have surprisingly high age average. Most of this "older" people don't see violence "cool", just only as a stuff that kids must have since they think it's mature (like the games rating). Also this people have kids and have started to think something else than their own asses. A lot of games do have a lot of content, which us parents don't want our kids to see.