Why should there be ratings for games?
- Thread starter DELTA x WOLF
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Because some content/language isn't appropriate for some ages, but mostly so the devs don't get sued for 12 year olds learning bad things from games.
Unfortunately the only way we can gauge mental maturity is through age. I can't wait for the microchips in our brains. "You've just watched Shaun of the Dead without laughing at the fart jokes. You can now play on Xbox Live."
Ratings are a general indicator on the appropriate age range for a game. As they are not really enforced (except for maybe AO games), their existence does not cause any problems. They can even help, when a parent realizes what the hell those big letters mean on the lower left of the box.
It is entirely the parent's fault if they are soft enough to bow to their children's every wishes.
Admittedly, there probably won't be any major effects for a kid playing an M-rated game to begin with, but the whole thing's to appease concerned mothers.
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Columbia_Mental_Maturity_Scale
http://www.allthetests.com/quiz03/dasquiztd.php3?testid=1035132458
All right, the last one is just an online quiz, but my point still stands.
It is entirely the parent's fault if they are soft enough to bow to their children's every wishes.
Admittedly, there probably won't be any major effects for a kid playing an M-rated game to begin with, but the whole thing's to appease concerned mothers.
What about this?Legendairy314 said:
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Columbia_Mental_Maturity_Scale
http://www.allthetests.com/quiz03/dasquiztd.php3?testid=1035132458
All right, the last one is just an online quiz, but my point still stands.
Because some parents aren't stupid. And because some games shouldn't be played by impressionable 8-year-olds.
If the parent bought the game for the kid, for any reason, then the system is working. As long as a parent can look at the rating, and the description, and make a choice whether to buy the game or not based on that, the system works.
There's nothing wrong with a parent buying an M-Rated game for their kid. It's their kid. We as gamers sometimes give M-Rated games the same sort of weight that politicians do, and that's just stupid. M-Rated games are fine. They don't damage kids anymore then violent TV and Movies do. If a parent willingly buys their kid MW2, then that's fine. The ESRB is only there to help them make informed decisions. But in the end, we as gamers know that that kid isn't going to turn into a terrorist just because he plays MW2. Except perhaps for the No Russian level, everything in MW2 is good enough to show on latenight TV, which kids have ready access to already.
There's nothing wrong with a parent buying an M-Rated game for their kid. It's their kid. We as gamers sometimes give M-Rated games the same sort of weight that politicians do, and that's just stupid. M-Rated games are fine. They don't damage kids anymore then violent TV and Movies do. If a parent willingly buys their kid MW2, then that's fine. The ESRB is only there to help them make informed decisions. But in the end, we as gamers know that that kid isn't going to turn into a terrorist just because he plays MW2. Except perhaps for the No Russian level, everything in MW2 is good enough to show on latenight TV, which kids have ready access to already.
That made my day, and pretty much summed up what I was going to say in a much more amusing way.SimuLord said:
parents have enough to deal with without having to play every game their kids want to play to completion to see if there's anything they find objectionable in it. It's not lazy for a parent to just be able to ask "what's in it?"Mornelithe said:
And if the parent doesn't care, then the system is still working, because at least they have the option, and as we still live in the free western world, parents have the right to raise their kids however the fuck they want, and that's a beautiful thing.
Yes, there is. They don't faze terrible parents like the one in the OP, but those that can tolerate some mild embarrassment find them rather helpful.DELTA x WOLF said:
And when the stupid mom complains about the violence, someone can point to the 17 plus on the box, and tell her it's her own damn fault.
For the good parents to make decisions that good parents do.
The bad parents probably think M stands for Manly or something.
The bad parents probably think M stands for Manly or something.
So we can keep as many pre-teens off Xbox LIVE as possible.
Seriously though, it's because of the violence, swearing, and other profane things in games now a day. A lot of parents don't want their kids exposed to that, and with the rating system, kids can't go in and get Super Blood Feast 4: Ultra Hitler's Reincarnated Revenge*.
*Not a game yet, but will be someday...
Seriously though, it's because of the violence, swearing, and other profane things in games now a day. A lot of parents don't want their kids exposed to that, and with the rating system, kids can't go in and get Super Blood Feast 4: Ultra Hitler's Reincarnated Revenge*.
*Not a game yet, but will be someday...
I don't know really. My parents bought me only E games for my first few gaming years. If it had a slight bit of violence, like Super Smash Bros. (the original one), my mom would cringe a bit. And I didn't get my first Teen game till like 13 years old, even with an older brother (3 years older). Thing is, I thank my parents (mostly my mom) for that kind of thing. Sure, maybe if I had played X or Y mature game, I wouldn't have been exactly scarred for life, but it is necessary to let parents know that the content is not to be handled by somebody who's so young doesn't get stuff. For example, I complained to my mom of the B (I dunno what the equivalent in the US is, I think it's PG-13) rating on Revenge of the Sith. She told me that that was necessary; kids might get the wrong idea, thinking Anakin was a victim, that what he did isn't bad, etc. I realize this now with a lot more maturity in me; it's not just what I find in the game, but the choices I am allowed to make and which the characters make in the game that should influence Parent's choices.
I know I'll be great full for the ESRB when I become a parent. I'll know that when my kid asks me for that first T or M game, I will be able to actually come up with answers as to why it's ok this time, or not ok. I will also be great full for game rentals and steam and demos, for giving me a way of playing them and give my judgement on their content.
And as a side note, my mom still hasn't changed. She always asks me to turn off the blood effects on Gears of War =)
I know I'll be great full for the ESRB when I become a parent. I'll know that when my kid asks me for that first T or M game, I will be able to actually come up with answers as to why it's ok this time, or not ok. I will also be great full for game rentals and steam and demos, for giving me a way of playing them and give my judgement on their content.
And as a side note, my mom still hasn't changed. She always asks me to turn off the blood effects on Gears of War =)
This. It's a purely legal standpoint to avoid any lawsuits. It's always been up to the parents, no matter how idiotic they may be.rockyoumonkeys said:
In the US at least, the rating on a game is determined by a non-government board that consists of industry "experts". It is ENTIRELY optional - no game HAS to have an ESRB rating on it, just like how films don't have to carry a rating as well.
You see, the US has the first amendment, which my nation Australia lacks. This means that the US government CANNOT put a rating on a game or restrict who can buy it and how they can buy it. The policy of not selling violent videogames to minors is entirely optional, but most game stores do it so as not to attract negative publicity.
In Australia, on the other hand, we don't have the first amendment. Instead, we have a government appointed board of idiots who arbitrarily (it seems) decides whether or not something is violent. The decisions made by our censorship board seem almost schizophrenic - I mean, having morphine in Fallout 3 was apparently awful, yet EATING CIVILIANS in Prototype was A-okay.
In any case, ratings in the USA are not government ratings, and they are not mandatory, but they are there to avoid bad publicity. The ratings are actually useful to parents who pay attention to them and aren't morons. In other nations, like mine, the government still has a lingering religious element to it (thanks for nothing UK) and it doesn't feel comfortable unless it's trying to subtly cram its puritanical values down our throat. Granted, the classification board has lost a LOT of power in the past 20 years or so, and virtually no games get banned over here, but every once in a while our classification authorities give a spasmodic reflex and ban a game for no real reason just to remind us that it still exists. I mean, they tried to ban L4D2 due to "graphic" violence, related to the use of melee weapons when applied to zombie skulls, yet they allowed GTAIV in with no problems, even though that game allows you to go base-ball bat crazy on civilians. See what I mean by the fact that their decisions are arbitrary, or even schizophrenic? Zombie brains = bad, but EATING CIVILIANS AND CRUSHING THEIR BODIES WITH A M1A1 Abrams ON THE STREETS OF NEWYORK in Prototype = perfectly fine.
Well whatever - my main point is that ratings can serve a purpose, they are not (in the US) mandatory, and they were initially created to stave off bad publicity.
You see, the US has the first amendment, which my nation Australia lacks. This means that the US government CANNOT put a rating on a game or restrict who can buy it and how they can buy it. The policy of not selling violent videogames to minors is entirely optional, but most game stores do it so as not to attract negative publicity.
In Australia, on the other hand, we don't have the first amendment. Instead, we have a government appointed board of idiots who arbitrarily (it seems) decides whether or not something is violent. The decisions made by our censorship board seem almost schizophrenic - I mean, having morphine in Fallout 3 was apparently awful, yet EATING CIVILIANS in Prototype was A-okay.
In any case, ratings in the USA are not government ratings, and they are not mandatory, but they are there to avoid bad publicity. The ratings are actually useful to parents who pay attention to them and aren't morons. In other nations, like mine, the government still has a lingering religious element to it (thanks for nothing UK) and it doesn't feel comfortable unless it's trying to subtly cram its puritanical values down our throat. Granted, the classification board has lost a LOT of power in the past 20 years or so, and virtually no games get banned over here, but every once in a while our classification authorities give a spasmodic reflex and ban a game for no real reason just to remind us that it still exists. I mean, they tried to ban L4D2 due to "graphic" violence, related to the use of melee weapons when applied to zombie skulls, yet they allowed GTAIV in with no problems, even though that game allows you to go base-ball bat crazy on civilians. See what I mean by the fact that their decisions are arbitrary, or even schizophrenic? Zombie brains = bad, but EATING CIVILIANS AND CRUSHING THEIR BODIES WITH A M1A1 Abrams ON THE STREETS OF NEWYORK in Prototype = perfectly fine.
Well whatever - my main point is that ratings can serve a purpose, they are not (in the US) mandatory, and they were initially created to stave off bad publicity.