Game People Calling: Start Playing the Right Games

[baconfist]

While I agree that the ESRB ratings are stupid I don't think that just putting in some other rating system or recommendation system is any better. You still wont know if you like a game until you play it.
The whole ESRB rating system isn't really to prevent kids from accessing mature content as they will undoubtedly have already experienced, it's to be able to deny blame when a incident occurs.

 

[Jared]

For Grandparents, games that help improve memory are extremely valuable. I'd add some of those to that category.

I know my grandparents couldnt do any worse!

 

[Yog Sothoth]

Game People Calling: Start Playing the Right Games

Should sensors should focus on recommendation rather than prohibition?

Read Full Article

Don't you mean "Censors"?

Seconded.... Somewhere, an editor is asleep at the wheel and one slipped by them.

 

[Whispering Death]

Censors will never do such a thing. The whole point of censorship is for those in power to impose their morals and world-views on the masses.

Those in power don't care if the masses are happy, they just care about making sure they stay "in line".

 

[BoilingLeadBath]

As the people above say, sorting games by some sort of expected audience is going to be very difficult, controversial, and will probably drive down sales.

Giving some standardized package information about control complexity might be possible; perhaps a split rating indicating the typical number of degrees of freedom used simultaneously and number of important buttons. IE, Guitar #### at 1/5, Gears of War at 2.5/8, your typical FPS at maybe 3.8/8, and Decent at 5.3/4.
Doesn't mean it'd be a good idea, just that it's possible...

 

[Alias42]

I don't really find myself in any of the categories.

I am currently in college, and I tend to go for games that truly offer something new on the medium. You could call me an "artsy" gamer.

Perhaps a suggestion?

 

[lodo_bear]

Censors will never do such a thing. The whole point of censorship is for those in power to impose their morals and world-views on the masses.

Those in power don't care if the masses are happy, they just care about making sure they stay "in line".

I agree, but all the same, what if censors got smart? What if they played nice and tried to encourage rather than impose?

I have conservative tastes myself and I encourage others to seek out milder entertainment, but I know better than to try and force my views on anyone. Forcible censorship always, always backfires horribly. If you want people to make the right choice, you have to do it yourself and advocate it as an option, and that's about all you should do. If you restrict people from doing wrong, you do wrong yourself. As Eleanor Roosevelt [http://www.saidwhat.co.uk/quotes/favourite/eleanor_roosevelt] said, and as Chinese philosophers [http://chineseculture.about.com/library/symbol/blcc_bettertolightthecandlethancursethedarkness.htm] said before her, it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness, and for me, encouraging good games is akin to candle-lighting, while restricting bad games is just darkness-cursing.

 

[sidereal_day]

"You are a grandparent, therefore you should play this type of game"?? Yeah, a cute idea, but ultimately meaningless. I'm a worker; I don't enjoy the type of games you suggested.

 

[Formica Archonis]

Should sensors should focus on recommendation rather than prohibition?

The two errors aside, I have major problems with this. The word "censor" is rather inflammatory. I have my problems with the ESRB, including their possession and occasional use of the killer AO rating like the MPAA's NC17. But I can't recall AO being used as a chilling effect (which would make the ESRB a de facto censor), beyond a few media-frenzy moral-panic situations. But then, I admit to not keeping up with gaming trends as well as many of this site's members.

But whatever the word, I have my misgivings about the system proposed - it marries a rating and a review system, two notoriously subjective things that pull in different directions. For instance, some gory over-the-top games are juvenile tripe, the kind of thing preteen boys giggle at once they tire of fart jokes, but that conventional wisdom says they shouldn't be seeing. What segment does that fit into?

Even if we leave the "ratings" idea out entirely and just look at this as an age recommendation system from a centralized authority it still falls short. It's a review system, and one game will garner a LOT of different ratings. While five out of six people might agree that a guy ripping spleens out isn't something kids should see, it'd be hard to get those same six people to come to an agreement on whether a long game with deep characterization and PG-13 content levels is best for teenagers or adults. Some might even say it's neither, that characterization in a game is a waste of time and that's what novels are for.

You can't really pigeonhole people into such neat boxes, true. But you often can't pigeonhole GAMES into such neat boxes either. And remember, a central authority doesn't have the virtue of being able to choose what games to pigeonhole. It has to pigeonhole every game that comes its way, or the volume of "Maturity Recommendation Not Provided" labels will make a farce of it. To pull a few names from history, what categories do Doom, Planescape: Torment, Zork, and Custer's Revenge fit into?

 

[jimduckie]

gee i doubt it would work , the ratings used now don't work , kids still play mw2 type games and the game companies won't go for it either

 

[FROGGEman2]

I don't think that people should be rated by age- rather, by resilience to violence and sexual content. I do agree with you otherwise.

Complimentary anti-mod response aside, can please talk about the giant elephant in the room?

Your spelling? Oh yeah, your grammar too. Seriously, it takes one (1) proofread to prevent this. Plain unprofessional.

 

[lukey94]

See now I'm in the Student category, but I would really put myself in Worker/Parent categories, because I looked at the suggestions on that Game People website, and well the Student section just feels so ..... bland and boring, maybe it's because it doesn't focus that much on us hardcore gamers

Whereas Workers/Parents had:
Shadow Complex
Uncharted 2
Red Faction
Fable 2


Those are more appealing to people in the upper bound of the Student category really, so maybe a little revision should be done to make them more accepting for younger hardcore gamers

 

[In Limbo]

Someone needs a new sub-editor.

 

[Adamfast]

I don't think replacing the rating system entirely with the one suggested would work for everyone, but having some sort of general, age-related recommendation would help more casual videogame buyers. Not everyone who walks into a game shop reads websites, reviews features and the like - it might also flag up games that unsuspecting parents buy for their kids more than the current rating system. A system that everybody pretty much ignores anyway.

 

[dofuss.net]

Some where in this thread of comments (sorry for not quoting) somebody made the point censors is an inflammatory term. Indeed it is. In truth the only censoring that is done is by companies trying to get their games within a certain rating, or stores/countries who refuse to allow higher rated games. If we were to think of these 'censors' more as guides to content then there seems to be a place for a recommendation of social group who would be attracted and appropriate content within a classification system.

Bullet points could say something like - violent content, gore, short play time rewarded, no need for huge time investment.

While the suggested categories would run into trouble with particular age groups and social overlaps the idea behind the groups is sound. We just may have to break those ideas out of these example. I for one would at times be happy to know if the experience I am picking up will require an investment of time to get something get the most out of rather than being 'pick up and play' (which is why I visit gaming sites but lets face it many people don't).

 

[JoshGod]

this isnt a good idea. just because its for infants doesnt mean its not fun. for instance LBP is a very child friendly game but i enjoyed it alot.
also people have different likes despite their age, infact what you are suggesting is hinting on ageism abit.
anyway i dont think the game rating are to be worried about (unless ur in AU) as they are constantly being lowered and the limits pushed.
the problem ive seen with them is that its not that at an age you can play this game it varies from person to person. ive always thought it should be the parents who decide if their chilren should play a game as they know how mature they are, of course this is flawed as well by stupid/overprotective parents and religous nuts. although this is how it is as parents get children games.

in short leave it as it is.

 

[JenJea]

I don't think replacing the rating system entirely with the one suggested would work for everyone, but having some sort of general, age-related recommendation would help more casual videogame buyers. Not everyone who walks into a game shop reads websites, reviews features and the like - it might also flag up games that unsuspecting parents buy for their kids more than the current rating system. A system that everybody pretty much ignores anyway.

I agree.

It's not needed for the sort of gamers that would frequent sites like this but it's amazing the amount of people that will walk into a shop and just pick something on the basis of what the box says.

However I'm not sure if it should be down to censors to determine this but some other sort of board might be useful to help define these things for the newbies to the gaming world.

 

[Ph0t0n1c Ph34r]

Which group would you put yourself in?

Workers. According to the description, definitely workers. Ironic considering I'm unemployed at the moment.

Dito. The irony is almost palpable.

 

[Twad]

While i like the idea, from what i see, people dont care about rating... they just care to buy the peace at home by getting the lattest bloodbath/hyped games to their kid.


edit- i like the idea because it isnt based on negativity (watch out, blood and gore ect), like you said in your article, its more positive and based on target audience. Or maybe a combination of both would work best?

 

[beemoh]

Isn't this whole thing just "reviews"? As such, doesn't it just self-regulate when one media outlet praises a game while the next pans it? Maybe some of your categorisations are better served than others, I grant you, but that's more to do with the markets beyond "Juniors" and "Students" still small and developing than anything.

But you can't put me in a box ( I won't know whether I'm dead or not ^^)

You would, as you'd be able to observe yourself- Shrodinger doesn't know the state of the cat, but the cat's fully aware of it. ;P