ESA Oppose Idea of Universal Media Ratings
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
This is just bad idea from the get-go, and with ESA pushing to keep it from happening, I am optimistic it will not. For one it will just be a waste of time, as R movies don't stop kids from going to see a movie on their own, why should it stop them from getting into other media? No, what this will open up is a foundation to bringing censorship out in the open on all media, making the government the big decider on what we all can see or play, not just kids. That's where it becomes unconstitutional. Frankly no ratings system is worth a crap without adults that take responsibility to follow up on what is rated themselves, and taking the time to educate their kids. Don't believe me? Find the youngest friend you know who is over 18, but can look under 18, and have them go to see Halloween 2 in a theater, carrying a note from their parents. Betcha one out of every 2 theaters will let them pass. Might even be worth trying at your nearest Gamestop.
Hm, I can at least sympathize with the parents for whom the ESRB makes ratings. If you work 9-5, have a kid, you might be more worried about what the kid eats and how to spend time together. Not only that, but if you're not computer-savvy, information doesn't flow as freely. And even if you are proficient, that doesn't mean you're aware of all the tools available to you (e.g. I haven't heard of "whattheyplay.com" which is basically an expanded ratings system - granted, I never have use of the service, but if I didn't know, how can I expect others to?). I mean, it's easy to sit on the forum at an internet news site and complain that people aren't getting the news (or at least, aren't as well-informed as you are), but sitting here doesn't help spread the information. And if someone don't know the information is out there, why would they look for it?
That, and if you're in a Best Buy or wandering about a Gamestop and your kid picks something up and says I WANT IT, you can either make a snap decision about whether you should buy it or not, or delay the decision (and have to deal with the fallout, while you spend your precious time researching it, if you even remember). At least the ESRB has a quick rating for you to base judgment on (and even some insight as to why the game was rated as such). Even worse if what they want is a game not out yet, not a "mainstream" title, or both. (E.g. your son is interested in Alpha Protocol. Some violence is okay, but you'd rather not have to deal with too much sexuality in the game. Is it too much, and what sexual content is there?) Probably the best thing to do in that situation is to ask an employee, but there's still a good chance they'll just point to the back of the box, where the rating is detailed.
That isn't to say that the ESRB is perfect (for example, what in the world does "Suggestive Themes" actually entail? Is it an "Alcohol Reference" if they show alcohol, or only if it depicts someone consuming it?), but I don't think that taking it away would do any real benefit.
More information is definitively a plus. But I don't think it's reasonable to demand that people educate themselves the way that we do. After all, not everyone has the ability to spend hours of their free time milling about on the internet.
Sorry, I ended up kind of rambling.
That, and if you're in a Best Buy or wandering about a Gamestop and your kid picks something up and says I WANT IT, you can either make a snap decision about whether you should buy it or not, or delay the decision (and have to deal with the fallout, while you spend your precious time researching it, if you even remember). At least the ESRB has a quick rating for you to base judgment on (and even some insight as to why the game was rated as such). Even worse if what they want is a game not out yet, not a "mainstream" title, or both. (E.g. your son is interested in Alpha Protocol. Some violence is okay, but you'd rather not have to deal with too much sexuality in the game. Is it too much, and what sexual content is there?) Probably the best thing to do in that situation is to ask an employee, but there's still a good chance they'll just point to the back of the box, where the rating is detailed.
That isn't to say that the ESRB is perfect (for example, what in the world does "Suggestive Themes" actually entail? Is it an "Alcohol Reference" if they show alcohol, or only if it depicts someone consuming it?), but I don't think that taking it away would do any real benefit.
More information is definitively a plus. But I don't think it's reasonable to demand that people educate themselves the way that we do. After all, not everyone has the ability to spend hours of their free time milling about on the internet.
Sorry, I ended up kind of rambling.
They should make renting games cheaper and have a higher availability. That's why I love demos so much, make sure I can rent a game that won't suck. It also let's parent's trust something besides ESRB.
One system would make sense as long as it's not used as an excuse to ban games. I'm Irish and we now use a single system for films / tv and video games. Basically they just slap the Film ratings on video games. As far as I'm aware (and I could be wrong) the only game that was outright banned since this came into effect is Manhunt 2 and while I appreciate the view that a step by step guide of how to kill people with everyday objects could be rather un-nerving, would anyone need a guide to know how to suffocate someone with a plastic bag or stab then with a pen?
I probably wouldn't play it anyway, but the issue is if they can ban something, they will.
I probably wouldn't play it anyway, but the issue is if they can ban something, they will.
Yeah, this sounds like a Power / Budget fight between the two agencies. I'm not a fan of the ESA, but the FCC is even more clueless. Taking the power from the industry and putting it in government hands is a baaaaad idea.
Of course, the FCC seems fairly toothless lately. I've seen and heard stuff on South Park and Howard Stern that makes me think, "Oh boy, here comes the FCC", but they do nothing. At least I haven't heard about any whopping fees those two have had to pay out lately.
I still can't forgive them for censoring my Bugs Bunny cartoons, though. Oh, and you non-cable TV stations? If it's "Edited for Content", I'm not watching it.
Of course, the FCC seems fairly toothless lately. I've seen and heard stuff on South Park and Howard Stern that makes me think, "Oh boy, here comes the FCC", but they do nothing. At least I haven't heard about any whopping fees those two have had to pay out lately.
I still can't forgive them for censoring my Bugs Bunny cartoons, though. Oh, and you non-cable TV stations? If it's "Edited for Content", I'm not watching it.
The FCC is desperately trying to stay relevant since the internet has made TV and Radio a thing of the past. No one thinks that this universal rating system is a good idea.
The FCC is pretty worthless now, in fact for all the FCC bashing on Family Guy and O&A, the FCC hardly does anything, most of the time censorship is due to advertisers and sponsorship.
The FCC is pretty worthless now, in fact for all the FCC bashing on Family Guy and O&A, the FCC hardly does anything, most of the time censorship is due to advertisers and sponsorship.
[small]Sorry, but I couldn't help it. :[[/small]
Anyways, understanding the rating systems in television, movies, and video games isn't hard at all. If people are confused about them and how they work then they could easily look it up or just not watch whatever programming has the confusing rating.
Anyways, understanding the rating systems in television, movies, and video games isn't hard at all. If people are confused about them and how they work then they could easily look it up or just not watch whatever programming has the confusing rating.
hansari said:
Ratings are never meant to give someone an in depth critique on anything, they are merely a way to tell people that whatever is being rated has met certain criteria to deserve that rating. Do you nknow what exactly a 5-star safety rating for cars mean? How about a 10.0 for a gymnastics competition? You know that those signify that the quality/performance was good, but most people don't have an indepth knowledge of what it takes to arn those ratings. The same goes for video games. A game that is rated T won't have lots of gore or sexual material, so if a parent doesn't want their kid to see those, then they know that a T rated game is fine for their kid to play. Seeing that a game is rated M means that you can expect gore and/or sexual material, but you won't find a list of what exactly in the game earned it that rating.
The ratings in any media are, at the end of the day, suggestions from some body of people that has decided that certain material is appropriate for certain people. These ratings may be enforced by the businesses that carry the material, but at the end of the day a parent decideds what is and isn't appropriate and a pile of footage of people being ripped apart by a chainsaw isn't going to stop someone from letting their kid see that if they believe that the material is appropriate for them. You may disagree with that person, but it's not your decision.
To quote an overused line: "They're more like guidelines."
Wait, you're saying the ability to make impulse purchases to satisfy your greedy children's demand for instant gratification is a good thing? Geez, now I'm REALLY against unified ratings systems!pneuma08 said:
They'll still do it, just blindly. At least some people pay attention to the ratings system and have some idea about what's going on.Steve the Pocket said:
The real problem is with people, I think. You can't force people to be educated. That said, ratings systems at least try to propagate information, even if it's in a somewhat bumbling way. (Although really, can anyone come up with a better system? You can't hand out a flyer with each and every game/movie/medium, and it would be ignored by nearly everyone anyway. Note that it has to be in-store to be comparable to the ratings systems; out-of-store there is the internet, but even then finding things on the internet takes some willful effort which is what is lacking in the first place.)
So the long and the short of it is that I think ratings are overall a good thing, admittedly not perfect. (The worst thing that ratings do is let retail chains refuse the selling of media rated specific ways, i.e. "NC-17" or the older "X" as well as "AO". This encourages self-censorship to get below the rating, which is disappointing, but I don't believe it's so tragic as to doom the whole system.)
Universal ratings are kind of unnecessary though. It doesn't seem like it would change anything but the letters themselves. That seems like a lot of work for nothing.
I will say the same I say in any thread about this censorship nonsense. Piracy is already a major problem for gaming. If the people(by people I mean those under 17) who actually buy games are suddenly cut off because the ratings are changed due to new universal guidelines, then even they will pirate.
All of my friends have demonoid accounts and know how to pirate PC and console games. But we still buy games if possible. However, if I went to buy MW2 or Mass Effect 2 and I was told I needed to show my ID or so crap like that, then we would have no choice but to pirate the game.(This is assuming that my parents couldn't buy me the game)
All of my friends have demonoid accounts and know how to pirate PC and console games. But we still buy games if possible. However, if I went to buy MW2 or Mass Effect 2 and I was told I needed to show my ID or so crap like that, then we would have no choice but to pirate the game.(This is assuming that my parents couldn't buy me the game)