I believe that the current system should be simplified and that only two ratings should exist. 

Most video games currently fall under one of three categories:

E for Everyone

T for Teen

M for Mature

Some exceptions fall under AO (adults only) and others the everyone 10 and up ratings.  AO should remain under the same guidelines that exist now and be a very, very minimal group of games that barely exists.  Everyone 10 and up should be gotten rid of completely.  Children can handle a fart joke, the image of someone smoking a cigarette, or anything else that is the reason for this rating.

Lately I have been seeing plenty of things being written about how the PS3 and 360 are the coolest systems in the eyes of teens.  It is well known that both of them have a higher percentage of M rated games in their library when compared to the Wii.  Should the M rating actually be a T rating?  I argue no since some young people in that age group don't care for those kind of games at all, believe it or not, and some people past their teenage years play M rated games.  Hmm... This is a conundrum in which I shall return to later.

Percentage wise,  the Wii is definitely the system of choice when it comes to gamers in their thirties and older.  Would this make the games that they play be labeled M for mature?  Wouldn't this be a problem since they seem to be enjoying the same games as children and that those games under the current system are being rated E for everyone?  Also, as I said before, some people in this age group play games that are rated M.  This is yet another problem that needs to be addressed.

What about games that are currently rated T for Teen you say?  I say that they should stop riding the fence.  Either make your games more appropriate for everyone or throw some chainsaws and machine guns into your games. 

Originally, I was saying to myself that these labels should be applied to the age groups the generally play the games.  This would make two ratings.  The new E+M label for everyone and mature and T for Teen, but after careful reflection and rigorous thought I realized that these are generalizations.  Also E+M would be a very lame looking rating on a video game box. 

On the other hand, I do like the way that E looks on a video game box and I like the way that M looks as well so I figure that those should be the two ratings that we go with, but maybe they should mean something different.  E will now mean exclusive to the Wii and M will mean multiplatform for the 360 and PS3.  Those aren't generalizations, are they?     

I would go further. Two ratings: Nothing, and AO. AO is strictly regulated and sold only to 18+ with ID. If parents are "worried" about content they can research the game themselves - the game rating organisations are too strict (SSBM for Teen?) and not in touch with the public. Watching trailers should give a fair idea of the content for the whole game.

The government shouldn't be giving advice on purchases nor determining what is appropriate for children except on the 18+ border.

So you really don't believe in ratings at all then?

All joking aside. There is a big difference between a game that's E rated as opposed to M rated, don't you think?

Yes, but I don't tink it's for the government to decide that. Parents can decide on an individual basis after looking at the game rather than being persudaed by a single letter determined by an agency with no oversight or appeal.

God of War should be adult only

Well in the uk I think we have 7, 12 , 15 , 18 which I think works pretty well.

In theory I like this idea, but I'm afraid that it would work in the opposite way that it should.  Games that are borderline would would be in trouble and thrown into the 18 and up category.

So if you got rid of the governments ratings what would stop a kid from buying a game he shouldn't. It's not like kids don't have money and can't go to stores on their own. The rating can help make a line to when someone can't buy something without the parents. Making it so the parents are the ones making the decisions

As I said before, I think that there is a big difference between a game that's rated E and one that's rated M. 

I was was being silly in my original post.

I was agreeing that 18 and up would be like an R rating and that kids wouldn't be allowed to buy it, but that this would mean that more "borderline" games would be 18 and up and that it wouldn't work.

Trying to protect kids from this stuff is impossible anyway. Ratings just impede the freedom to access content and don't protect anyone. Where's the evidence they reduce the number of kids seeing inappropriate content, or that restricting access reduces real-world crime? Until both of those are shown there should be no rating system other than None/R. And even then I'd only put the R in to appease the public - ideally I'd have no ratings at all.

@amp316: To place a game in R it would have to meet the criteria of explicit depiction of sex. I can't see many games being called borderline.