bdbdbd said: @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.

Then don't let your kid play those games, its called parenting!!!

Iam not goona have my freedoms taken away just becasue you can't control what your kid watchs or plays.

Games have the ESRB ratings, why dont you do your job as a parent read the label see its rating is M and say NO little Billy this game is NOT for you.

superchunk said: 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.

QTF.

I think there's some confusion here. There's no law in the US stating that sexually explicit games can't be sold. The console companies and retailers, however, believe that it's generally a losing decision to carry those games - if parents find out that Walmart is selling AO-type games, they might stop shopping at Walmart.

Ratings serve the same purpose as game reviews. I don't have the time to try every single game that comes out, and parents don't have the time to carefully examine every single game that their kids want to buy. Reviews give me an indication of quality and ratings give parents an indication of propriety. A parent who uses ratings isn't being a bad parent - it's unrealistic to expect much more.

To get back to the original point:

Gears of War rated M, Manhunt 2 rated AO: assuming a certain level of economic rationality, these two games are rated differently because consumers of ratings would want them to be rated differently. This makes sense to me. Gears of War is bad, but I'd let my kid play that long before I let him play Manhunt 2. My girlfriend thinks that Gears of War is somewhat disgusting, but she finds the concept of Manhunt 2 evil. I don't think I'd be allowed to own the second game. And, of course, the vast majority of parents in the US would rather their kids play Gears than have them see Hot Coffee.

The highest rating is always going to be radioactive. Parents understand that the medium has the potential to portray things that they don't want their kids seeing, and they know that the most restrictive rating is going to contain works with content that they object to.

You need an AO rating to differentiate games that parents should be careful about letting their kids experience from games that virtually all parents would want to keep away from their children.

Of course, in any system like this, there's going to be a fairly arbitrary line. And companies are going to toe that line as long as it's rewarding to do so. However, getting rid of AO ratings wouldn't change that; you'd just make M radioactive and start companies on trying to toe the T-M line.

Perhaps it'd be better to have two levels of AO rating and to scrap E, T, and M in favor of 3-18, but that sacrifices simplicity and would open the ESRB up to charges of bias.

The best thing would be that either M or AO (one of the two) rating would be deleted. They pretty much cover the same thing.

It's pointless to have two ratings that cover the same thing. AO has created a taboo around it, while it's the same thing as M.

More major games could be released under AO to slowly delete the taboo... but nobody is gonna take that risk (console makers).

But you need a radioactive rating. There are games that almost all parents don't want their kids playing, and they assume that they're going to be found under the most restrictive rating.

If you get rid of AO, you provide Jack Thompson and those like him a great deal of ammunition. It would be perfectly accurate to say that the "ESRB doesn't think that Halo 3 is any more appropriate for your children than some sort of hypothetical rape simulator".

The whole point of AO is to be a beyond the pale rating that no retailer wants to carry. This allows them to market less vile games under the M rating without the same stigma.

Edit: Basically, you strip the industry of the ability to argue that it can effectively police itself at all.  Many parent will let their teens play Halo, but many wouldn't want them to touch Manhunt.  By failing to rate the two games differently, the ESRB fails to adequately police itself in the eyes of many parents.  

GotchayeX said: But you need a radioactive rating. There are games that almost all parents don't want their kids playing, and they assume that they're going to be found under the most restrictive rating. If you get rid of AO, you provide Jack Thompson and those like him a great deal of ammunition. It would be perfectly accurate to say that the "ESRB doesn't think that Halo 3 is any more appropriate for your children than some sort of hypothetical rape simulator". The whole point of AO is to be a beyond the pale rating that no retailer wants to carry. This allows them to market less vile games under the M rating without the same stigma. Edit: Basically, you strip the industry of the ability to argue that it can effectively police itself at all.  Many parent will let their teens play Halo, but many wouldn't want them to touch Manhunt.  By failing to rate the two games differently, the ESRB fails to adequately police itself in the eyes of many parents. Â

This really does make sense, the ESRB AO-rating does indeed provide safety from people like Jack Thompson, but in the other hand, it also pushes game developers to make as violent game as possible to get the game M-rated, and that's what hurts M-rated games. I think the PEGI-system is much better, it has clear age limits and it doesn't have AO-type of rating, which works as a firewall against Jack Thompsons. Your earlier post was good and i agree in most parts, especially thing you said about parenting, exectly what i meant to say at first place.

Hus said: bdbdbd said: @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. Then don't let your kid play those games, its called parenting!!! Iam not goona have my freedoms taken away just becasue you can't control what your kid watchs or plays. Games have the ESRB ratings, why dont you do your job as a parent read the label see its rating is M and say NO little Billy this game is NOT for you.

Since you're saying in between the lines, that you are minor, who can't yet play M-rated games, no one is going to take your rights away, since you don't yet have ones. But, do you think that I am giving up on my kids rights because of some no-life 15 year old brat, who wants to play mature games because he thinks they are for adults. I can watch what my kids do at home, but friends houses are a bit different, for example i don't know many 12 yo:s, who wouldn't have at least one 18+ game. In general, the problem is parents who don't care what their kids play, but without a rating system, problem would be violent games itself. More games should be rated higher, since in the current situation it's enough to clean up the consiquenses, not the violence itself.

naznatips said: I completely disagree with you Final_Fan, ... 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. ...

Are you really saying that the Saw movies are appropriate for everyone the Die Hard movies are appropriate for?  That is indeed where we completely disagree. 

@Final-Fan: Naznatips is saying that the similar people who watch Die Hard, watch the Saw.

bdbdbd said: GotchayeX said: But you need a radioactive rating. There are games that almost all parents don't want their kids playing, and they assume that they're going to be found under the most restrictive rating. If you get rid of AO, you provide Jack Thompson and those like him a great deal of ammunition. It would be perfectly accurate to say that the "ESRB doesn't think that Halo 3 is any more appropriate for your children than some sort of hypothetical rape simulator". The whole point of AO is to be a beyond the pale rating that no retailer wants to carry. This allows them to market less vile games under the M rating without the same stigma. Edit: Basically, you strip the industry of the ability to argue that it can effectively police itself at all. Many parent will let their teens play Halo, but many wouldn't want them to touch Manhunt. By failing to rate the two games differently, the ESRB fails to adequately police itself in the eyes of many parents. This really does make sense, the ESRB AO-rating does indeed provide safety from people like Jack Thompson, but in the other hand, it also pushes game developers to make as violent game as possible to get the game M-rated, and that's what hurts M-rated games. I think the PEGI-system is much better, it has clear age limits and it doesn't have AO-type of rating, which works as a firewall against Jack Thompsons. Your earlier post was good and i agree in most parts, especially thing you said about parenting, exectly what i meant to say at first place.

The place where we disagree is that I think not having two REAL ratings to distinguish violent vs. extremely violent games would hurt the industry more than not having a fake rating to defang Jack Thompson. 

After all, it didn't really work, did it?  He got national headlines for years, until even nongamers realized he was psycho, and got GTA3:SA slapped with the AO rating!  

bdbdbd said: @Final-Fan: Naznatips is saying that the similar people who watch Die Hard, watch the Saw.

If he is saying that, and I don't think he is, then he's wrong.  Example A:  Me.