No, what I'm saying is Die Hard, just like Saw, is not appropriate for children. This is why it has an R rating. Yes Final-Fan, I am saying Die Hard and Saw are appropriate for the same audiences. Are you saying people should be older than 17 to see Saw? I can't see how that makes much sense. I'd say by age 17 most kids are mature enough to watch a graphic movie like that. What other age requirements would you add? 21? I guess my point is, you're right that Die Hard and Saw are very different. I think Die Hard is probably appropriate for kids down to age 15, but that really doesn't change the rating bracket does it? Yes, Saw is gorey and disgusting, but that doesn't mean you should start expanding age qualifications past reasonable limits. 17 is plenty old enough for a kid to see Saw.

Similarly, a game like Gears of War is a game. Yes, it's gorey, but how could you really expect them to mark that higher than 17 years old? I agree that a Mature rated game does not equal a mature game (or a game targeted at adults) in and of itself, but certainly a 17 year old is mentally capable of playing such a game. Past that it's really pointless to have higher rating standards. I understand Manhunt 2 getting an AO rating, because with the control scheme I think the game is past the point of violent and approaching the point of completely obscene.

Parents do have a responsibility to protect their kids from Mature content, and I agree that it's difficult to do so, but I also believe in the companies rights to publish these games. Kids can sneak into R rated movies too (I know I did when I was young). That doesn't mean that there should be no R rated movies or that the R rating is too low. Honestly, I don't care for Mature rated games very much. I enjoy a couple, but in general I would rather play Mario than Grand Theft Auto. I still believe that they are well within reason to have these games published with a Mature rating. I think Manhunt 2 is a good example that graphic content has its limits, and the ESRB is staying within these reasonable limits with its rating systems.

I'd be fine with introducing something else between M and AO, but my primary point has always been that the most restrictive rating will always be radioactive and that few retailers will touch it.

There's just no way to make AO into a 'real' rating. As soon as Walmart carries a 'legitimate' AO game, it would be pointed out that they have no problem with murder and rape simulators. This is exactly what they're trying to avoid by not carrying AO games at all. You need a way for stores to make clear that they're not carrying the worst games. Even the PEGI system that bdbdbd describes does this - the worst offenders are banned by the government. It's a necessary safety valve, and the market demands it. I'd much rather it be done via voluntary action than by government intervention.

@Final-Fan: M and AO would work better if M would be for example 18 and AO 20. Problem is the one year difference, which basically is nothing.

I said similar, not same people. I am planning to watch the latest Die Hard when i have the time and can rent it, but i have no interest in the Saw.
Ok, think that there's a certain limit of violence per one ladder (in this case rating) and will both movies have enough violence to reach the last ladder? Basically examples were bad, because Die Hard is a sequel to popular trilogy (well the last one) and it has popular actor, which a lot of people like, and Saw is completely new franchise, without Bruce Willis or equivalent. Still, if both were in the starting situation, group of people interested in those two movies would be very similar, but neither group wouldn't necessarily have any person from the other group.

But that's the whole point of R versus NC-17. You can escort youngsters into R movies but not NC-17 ones. A 15-year-old with an inattentive parent could see Saw, Saw II, and Saw III in theaters, but would not have been able to had they been rated NC-17. NC-17 is indeed a different age restriction than R, and it is one that should have been applied to Saw by your own admission.

Anyway, I think that AO should not be a rating only for the absolute most depraved and sick games; rather, it should differentiate between a game such as Halo 3, with lots of violence and death, and a game like Gears of War, with equivalent amounts of violence and death, but much more explicitly and graphically represented.

And the other part of my OP argument was that the ratings system is broken now because when Manhunt 2 was given its appropriate rating, it caused instant death to that game when all 3 console makers said that there was no place for AO games on their systems. So they're going to cut out just enough gore to get it down to M. That hurts consumers, game developers, and the industry in general. [edit: not to mention the games themselves!]

Actually, Saw and Die Hard are aimed at very different audiences.  One is action/drama, the other is sadism/horror/gore.

And I actually specifically excluded the fourth Die Hard movie from the comparison, partly because they edited out just enough violence to get it down to PG-13.  I compared the FIRST  THREE Die Hard movies, rated R, to the FIRST THREE Saw movies, also rated R.  And, again, the first Die Hard and the first Saw appealed to very different audiences.  

They are very different movies, with different audiences, and should have received different ratings.   

Final-Fan, you apparently disagree with me. You think that rating games like Gears of War as AO would legitimize the rating instead of killing the games. Why? I've tried to argue that the most restrictive rating is always going to kill a work, just as an NC-17 rating can kill a movie's sales. What do you find objectionable about my arguments?

Actually, my recent responses have been to naznatips and bdbdbd.

I have stated in previous posts that the AO rating may indeed be radioactive beyond saving; I am arguing here about what ought to happen, not what necessarily will. On the other hand, if a big game like, say, Gears of War 2 were rated AO, I think that it would be powerful enough to overcome the stigma. At least, it would be on the retailer end; if Microsoft stuck to its "no AO" guns and sent it back to the shop, that would just prove that the system is broken.

And naznatips, bdbdbd, I don't think the above clarification changes our debate but if it does I'm sorry for not clearing that up before.

[edit:  To address your argument, GotchayeX, I have previously made my argument that keeping a radioactive rating in reserve to stop accusations of selling murder/rape simulators is both cowardly and ineffective.

[To wit:  "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!]

Well first, the part I highlighted.  Of course an inattentive parent could take a 15 year old to see Saw.  They could also buy it on DVD for them, even if it was NC-17.  You can not take away the reponsibility of parents.  It's simply not possible.

Second, you want something to differentiate between Halo and Gears, but age ratings are not that.  Information on video games is available to any who seek it.  Yes, Gears may be more inappropriate for kids than Halo is, but both are inappropriate.  If you are going to buy your child a game rated too old for them it's your responsibility to find out more about that game.  The ESRB is telling parents that these games are not appropriate for their kids.  If the parents decide to buy those games, the parents need to find out WHY they got those ratings and what the content in the games is.  The internet is there for a reason.  Don't have the internet?  Well there are public libraries you can go to to use the internet as well. 

Although this obviously is not the same thing, I think it should apply here as well:  Ignorance of the law is not a defense.  You can not take away the peoples' rights to make a decision.  Polls have shown that more than 75% of this country can't recognize key differences between the two politcal parties, but we still let them vote.  You are trying to take these games out of reach of the consumers simply because they might be bought by idiots who don't know what's in them.  If you want a more detailed rating system, that's fine, but the AO rating bans games from being published, and that really makes no sense at all. 

In summary: Both games are inappropriate.  This is marked clearly on the cover of the box.  You are making a decision to ignore that fact.  Therefore, it is your responsibility to know why that game is not appropriate for your child, when the information is clearly available, not the company's to keep rating games higher and higher so that you know just how inappropriate it is. If you were asking for a more detailed rating system, with more steps in the process, I would understand and maybe see a purpose in this, but what you are requesting is simply ridiculous and would be an abuse of the current system.

In fact, GotchayeX, you yourself said, "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."

But when Manhunt 2 got bitchslapped with the AO rating and banned from all consoles, guess what happened? They made some tiny changes and are getting it re-rated to M, the same as the Halo games.

QED.

That's fine, add more steps in the rating system to differentiate more, but AO is a taboo rating that bans the games from even being published on the 3 consoles.  It's not really fair to say something like Gears doesn't have the right to be published.  I personally am not a huge fan of Gears (I think graphic violence is a fallback for developers who lack creativity), but I think it has every right to make it to shelves.  The rating shows that kids shouldn't play it.  Maybe some more detailed ratings would be nice, but either way: kids shouldn't be playing Gears or Halo, regardless of the differences in gore.