Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Government Entertainment Politics

ESRB Should Stand Down? 140

Posted by Zonk from the kersplosion-of-koncern dept.
Next Generation has a piece wondering if the ESRB should step down in favour of an independent board, to restore the faith of consumers in the game ratings system. They talk with a company that proposes just that, wanting to substitute a new system for the current model. From the article: "Profanity Sex Violence (PSV) Ratings differ from the ESRB in that they describe levels of sex, violence and profanity in games (using a traffic light system) instead of judging a game to be appropriate for a certain age."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ESRB Should Stand Down? More

ESRB Should Stand Down?

Comments Filter:
  • I think the traffic light system is a good idea if only because of the seperate ratings for s l & v... I don't care about violence, but I can always do without excessive profanity and sex... Previously I had to find independent reviews to get that info.

    Oh... and I know this isn't FRIST PSOT!!!!!

    --Nick

    • Re:Good Idea (Score:2, Insightful)

      by John Nowak ( 872479 )
      Truly an American viewpoint. Clearly exposing your kid to horrible things like dirty words and "sex" is an awful thing to do, and shooting people in half just for the hell of it is a-okay!
      • He *might* mean him personally. And sex is evil, it makes you explain things to your kids. You just have to wait for a pet to die for violence!
        • I realize (or hope) you're joking, but most that would explain why americans are anti-sex and pro violence. The whole idea of actually teaching your kids something seems to be considered a bad thing by most United Statian (not to be confused with other americans).
          • Yes, aside from the first sentence. I know I wouldn't want to explain any of that stuff to a kid, but that(and lack of human contact) is why I'm not a parent. I really can't justify why Americans "hate" sex, I suppose it's just because it got started that way and no one wants to change it...
      • This is a personal thing... My kids (If I had any) would be stuck playing super mario bros on my NES until they're out of the house... I didn't start playing violent games until I was 18 and I don't think they should either.

        But, since I'm a lonely slashdot geek, I have neither kids, no a wife/girlfriend/prostitute to produce kids with. So, it's a moot point.

        --Nick
        • Spend a little more time with sex and a little less with violence you might not have that no sig other issues.. then again if you are a resident of the US then you would problem get a sig other faster with violence.. Ok I've made enough posts about this...
    • Obviously American.. or poking fun at Americans. Either way I would also like this new system because maybe it would be easier for me to find games with more sexuality in them, and be able to seriously shy away from all the mindless violence games..

      I'm one of the rare americans who likes more sex than violence. Oh and a bit of realistic conversation (read: Profanity) is good too.
    • I've been advocating - well, spouting off on message boards - about this for years. It amazes me how arbitrary ratings can be. This is more of a problem in the movie industry, though. If a director has clout and money, he can get whatever rating he wants slapped on a film.

      This would put power into the hands of parents. Instead of saying "we watched this movie / played this game, and we think it's just fine for your kids," they would be saying "we watched this movie / played this game, here's what's in i

      • Re:Good Idea (Score:3, Insightful)

        by WaterBreath ( 812358 )
        But how many parents will actually pay attention to that information and use it to make an informed decision about what to buy for their kids? The information is already available, to a certain extent. But many parents just hand the kid some cash and let them buy whatever they want.

        It goes beyond the moral argument of what it's "right" to consume for entertainment, and what is "wrong". We're never all going to agree on that. But that's not the only issue. The problem is, there have been no conclusive s

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @06:47PM (#13840330)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:RSAC (Score:3, Interesting)

      by valintin ( 30311 )
      My seven year old is not stupid. He is seven. He understands that E games are for him and M games are not and that he can only play T games if we approve. (Star Craft & RoboTech).

      More importantly he was able to understand this when he was five and he has never asked for an M game because he knows they are not for him. As a parent this is a huge feature, the ratings aren't just for adults.

      • Re:RSAC (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tepples ( 727027 )

        He understands that E games are for him and M games are not and that he can only play T games if we approve. (Star Craft & RoboTech).

        But then there are misguided parents who prohibit a 12.5 year old from playing Super Smash Bros. Melee or Dance Dance Revolution Ultramix 2 just because it was rated T in an era when the E10+ rating did not exist, without taking the time to review the game in such a close case.

        • >>>But then there are misguided parents who prohibit a 12.5 year old from playing Super Smash Bros. Melee or Dance Dance Revolution Ultramix 2 just because it was rated T in an era when the E10+ rating did not exist, without taking the time to review the game in such a close case.

          So? That's the parents' decision. Why should we care how they make it? Besides, if they can't even bother to think that their 12.5-year-old might be mature enough for a 13+ game, then they really don't want to bother w
      • One of the ESRB's cirteria for going up a notch is "comic mischief." Is that a joke?
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Why not movie ratings? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bluemeep ( 669505 ) <bluemeep@@@gmail...com> on Thursday October 20, 2005 @06:48PM (#13840334) Homepage
    "For example, the movie, Minority Report, carries red for violence and profanity and yellow for sex. The Lion King carries no colours, except yellow for mild violence." So green means there isn't any, yellow means it exists and red means there's a whole flippin' lot of it? That seems a little oversimplified, if you ask me...

    PSV sounds like a workable concept, but it seems like the big trouble is that all of these video game ratings are reinventing the wheel. Little Billy Schmidt's Mom may not know an E rated game from an M, but she sure knows what an R rated movie is.

    So roughly how many organizations would need massive payoffs in order to use the movie rating system for games?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Have they got something against blue?
    • Minority Report, carries red for violence and profanity

      So apparently this rating system can't distinguish between Minority Report and a Quentin Tarantino film. How useless.

      • Minority Report, carries red for violence and profanity

        So apparently this rating system can't distinguish between Minority Report and a Quentin Tarantino film. How useless.

        That's a big issue with this "proposal"; it's even more vague, arbitrary and uninformative than the current system. But here's another problem, for me anyway. From TFA:

        "As far as I know, they use a few gamers that reside in New York. They are trying to follow the way that the NPAA does it in that they are very circumspect about who thei
        • Frankly, this all just seems like a guy running an "organization" out of his apartment looking for publicity, which Next Generation seems all too happy to give him.

          Actually, I think he's worse than that. From other articles I've read, I think he's running a company, which is trying to get publishers and governments to license their brilliant idea of a ratings system.

          Now granted, Red, Yellow, Green is certainly simpler than what we have - but they can't claim it's more powerful. From the article, "The Lion
      • So apparently this rating system can't distinguish between Minority Report and a Quentin Tarantino film. How useless.

        With a QT film, the "traffic lights" are simply shown riddled with bullet holes...

    • PSV sounds like a workable concept, but it seems like the big trouble is that all of these video game ratings are reinventing the wheel. Little Billy Schmidt's Mom may not know an E rated game from an M, but she sure knows what an R rated movie is.

      But the 'R' rating is pretty useless by itself. For example, compare The Matrix with Kill Bill. Kill Bill is much higher on the graphic violence and profanity scales, but both got the same rating.

  • Sounds good... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Slow Smurf ( 839532 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @06:48PM (#13840339)
    As long as they do the same for movies.
    • I always wondered why they don't use the same system for movies. K=G, E=PG, T=PG-13, M=R, AO=NC-17. This would be a lot easier for parents to understand, as everyone knows what movie ratings mean, and the same basic things (violence, sex, profanity) are being measured for both movies and games. In general, a game that's rated "T" has about the same content as a PG-13 movie, and the other ratings match up relatively well too.

      Does a company own the G, PG etc. rating system, and they simply won't license

  • Sorry, buddy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @06:57PM (#13840401) Journal
    First, how does he propose to fund a system that is more expensive than the current system? Who pays, and how does that make his idea independent?

    Second, he decries the ESRB system as being too vague. Yes, it would be useful to rate PSV separately. But, c'mon, Red/Yellow/Green as the ranking? What is that, None, Some, a Lot? Who gets to determine where the line is between yellow and red?

    How about this: details on the cover. Ranking on a meaningful scale that at least gives us an fair idea of what's in the box.

    No matter what, I'm going to make sure I'm aware of what games my kid is playing, and what's in those games. But I'd hate to shell out $60, bring the game home, watch the kid get all excited, and then realize that it's too mature for him. Take the game away, and then go back to the store to get a refund.

    And, I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to research every game on the internet for half an hour... I'd rather spend that time interacting with my child.

    • Re:Sorry, buddy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Meagermanx ( 768421 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @07:33PM (#13840650)
      ...which is why they say, right there under the rating, what it's rated for, just like under the rating for a movie.
       
      Take a look at this. [esrb.org]
       
      We don't need a new system. We need people who understand and utilize the current system.
      • And, we need to tweak the current system.

        I'm sorry, "Sexual Themes," "Strong Sexual Content," and "Nudity" are the only descriptors for sex? They are too vague.

        I'd prefer a scale. Because "Strong Sexual Content" can vary widely across games, and some I would consider appropriate for a 13-year-old, and some I would not.
        • If you read the ratings "Sexual Themes" starts at M and goes higher. M is rated as 17 and older. A game with an M I would have to review before I would let my 13 year old play.

          I would not be too worried about Themes or Nudity but Content I think they could do with out. Do you have an example of "Strong Sexual Content" you would approve for a 13-year-old?
        • So having the text "Sexual Themes," "Strong Sexual Content," or "Nudity" is confusing. But having a green, yellow, or red dot on the box will clear things up? We aren't talking about a scale of 1-20 or anything it's a scale of 1 to 3.

          This is proposing going from an overall rating scaled over possible 6 age groups and 32 possible content descriptors (many of which are on a 3 tier scale) to 3 scales of red yellow and green on the box representing violence language and sex.

          How is this giving you more informati

      • which is why they say, right there under the rating, what it's rated for, just like under the rating for a movie.

        Problem is that the detailed ratings for movies and games are on the back of the box, but at (for example) Target, Wal-Mart, and Meijer stores, game boxes are behind locked glass and cannot be rotated to read the detailed rating, unlike movie boxes.

        • Good point. But how will this make the other rating system work any better?
        • That is very true. The ratings are labeled on the back of the box and stores have to put the games behind glass for security purposes because it is too susceptible of a target for shoplifting.

          Putting the rating label on the front of the box would be a good idea to elevate this problem.

          Of course once you ask the employee to open the case for you, you can look at that back and tell them to put it back if you don't agree with the games content.

          Another option is going to shop at EB, Gamestop or other game speci
          • Of course once you ask the employee to open the case for you, you can look at that back and tell them to put it back if you don't agree with the games content.

            Yes, but most good American parents would prefer not to actually touch a video game box, for fear it might instantly corrupt them. It's better to just ban them all and get kids back to playing with hula hoops or something.

    • How to fund? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Unordained ( 262962 ) <unordained_slashdotNOSPAM@csmaster.org> on Thursday October 20, 2005 @07:36PM (#13840675)
      Two choices:

      - Publishers pay: publishers pick the ratings they want to try to get, they pay to have their game (or movie, or music, or book, or painting, etc.) reviewed. The problem is the conflict of interest: if a rating board is seen as being 'nicer' to companies (per dollar) than others, they'll get the business, creating an incentive to be nicer.

      - Customers pay: removes the conflict of interest to a good degree. The only way I see for this to happen is for third parties to publish a non-free 'guide' to games on the market, listing their ratings for each. These guides could be centralized and cross-referenced by yet another company, also as a non-free guide. Stores could carry the cost of such guides (buy them in bulk, have them available at the counter or on the shelves) and just include the price of the game-rating service into the price of the games they sell.

      In either case, customers can vote with their purchase. If the games they're interested in don't care the certifications they think are good (that is, they've looked into the rules the rating boards use, and picked a few they think are fair), they don't buy the game. That at least creates a (slight) incentive for publishers to get their games rated by as many review boards as they can, whether it costs them or not.

      Should there be a requirement to publish what rating was received, if the publisher disagrees with it? If the review board self-publishes, that could be a problem. If the publisher is the one doing it, it at least physically has the choice not to include the rating on the box. There's also a difference between asking the board for a particular rating and getting a yes/no answer, and just asking the board to assign a rating -- I think it affects how the requirement to publish would affect publishers' willingness to ask.

      Note that all of this could be said of, say, FDA approval. Rather than having a government agency approve foods and drugs, customers could choose to trust (or not trust) each independent review board, and each manufacturer could choose to ask (or not ask) each review board to check their practices, or review boards could themselves decide to review products (particularly if self-published.) After all, shouldn't you be the one deciding whether or not you want to take the risk of using a particular drug or eating a particular food that you might be allergic to?

      There are a lot of areas though where we're:
      a) not willing to trust a multi-party system (but willing to trust a black-box single-party, governmental, system)
      b) not willing to take the time to investigate each rating board, ask around to find out if they're actually reliable, whether or not their ratings seem satisfactory, whether or not there have been 'bad surprises' ... and then check each product for a certification it may or may not have, depending on the publisher/manufacturer's whim.

      But this works with most product reviews already -- no standard label on the box lists the quality of the game, the flavor of the meat, etc. There are, what, hundreds of game-review sites on the 'net, and people seem to pick a few they like and trust, but cross-reference them to avoid bias?

      But hey, from a libertarian standpoint ...
    • And, I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to research every game on the internet for half an hour... I'd rather spend that time interacting with my child.

      Where do you live that the anticipated return trip to the store, and subsequent line at the customer service desk, is less than half an hour? I would waste at least that driving to/from the store, and usually end up being in line for 10 mins to talk to an employee.

      Online research is a good thing. Many people can read a review, decide quickly (15-30 mins)
      • I don't make special trips to buy games. Usually, I'd be on another errand, or getting all my shopping done at once.

        Also, I work in Manhattan. It's a short 2-block walk to the nearest game store.

        Also, I'm not talking about games for me -- I'm talking about games for my kid.
    • You don't have a half hour to research a game that your kid is going to play for 40+ hours?

      Perhaps you're too busy to be a parent in the first place?

  • The ESRWho? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @07:07PM (#13840488) Homepage
    Is it time for the Entertainment Software Ratings Board to stand down in favor of a truly independent ratings system, thereby nullifying a major criticism levelled against our industry?

    Do people who complain about excessive violence in videogames actually have any idea who the ESRB is? Or how it works?

    It's like Anime. Clueless people see Japanese Animation and think "It's a cartoon. It's for kids." Likewise, they take the same stereotypical view of videogames and come to the same completely incorrect conclusion. And then they complain that they bought a game for their kid that had decapitations, disembowlments, or a bare woman's ankle showing.

    If we're going anywhere, it should be to simplify the system even more. Do you know what I mean when I say G? T? T+? What about 13? 17? 21? Cut down on the symbology and the choice, parents just want to know if a particular game is reasonably appropriate for a kid the age of theirs. Or not. One simple answer.

    • The ESRB is an organisation funded by the gaming industry to rate their games how they pay them to rate them. Which is why some people are suggesting the rating board should be government run.. but unfortunately that typically means they will abuse their power and refuse ratings for some games, which may or may not result in a ban.
    • "Cut down on the symbology and the choice, parents just want to know if a particular game is reasonably appropriate for a kid the age of theirs. Or not. One simple answer."

      No, good parents want to know if a game is suitable for the maturity level of their child. Not a child of the same age, but specifically, their child.

      Yes, symbology gets in the way of this. But a blanket "13" does no good. Detail. A listing of the questionable content and the frequency it appears in-game. Then I can decide if my

      • But a blanket "13" does no good. Detail. A listing of the questionable content and the frequency it appears in-game.

        ESRB ratings already include detail on the back of the box. I guess you just want the detailed rating moved to the front of the box where it would become visible without having to track down a sales associate to unlock the glass display case.

      • Good parents would read a review of the game before spending 50 dollars on something that their kids are going to spend 50 hours in front of.

        Bad parents need instant ratings.
        • Ahh, yes, because all parents have access to the internet. And all parents would rather spend hours researching games then spending that time with their children.

          But would good parents allow their child to spend 50 hours playing a video game? That's more than 7 weeks of playing a game EVERY DAY for an hour.

          I work. I commute. I coach sports teams that my child is on. I do housework and yardwork. I pay bills and track household expenses. I cook dinner half the time. Every month or so, I even get t
  • Kinney believes that the industry would be better able to defend itself with an independent system, rather one that was set up by the industry itself.

    So when do Movies get their own independant system like this? If we "need" one for games and TV already has (a detailed) one, when do the movies get their own version of this? Although, does anyone know if the TV reviews are actually independant or by the producers/networks?

  • ESRB has PSV info (Score:5, Insightful)

    by p7 ( 245321 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @07:17PM (#13840558)
    If you check the ESRB info on the back, it should have this info already. The rating should only be the first criteria to look at. I see no reason to replace the ESRB, they do a decent job in evaluating games. I am doubtful that any other reasonably funded ratings board would be any more thorough.

  • No. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    to restore the faith of consumers in the game ratings system.

    Did I miss something? Was faith ever lost in the ESRB? The ESRB didn't create the "hot coffee" mod, and last I knew they were quite capable of rating a game "M for mature" if it contained sex or violence.

    The only thing that "Hot Coffee" made me loose a little more faith in are parents who refuse to care what they buy their children - or talking heads screaming about how videogames are apparently murdering babies in their sleep.

    instead of judging a

    • Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Meagermanx ( 768421 )
      "Hmmm. I wonder if '25 to Life' and 'Grand Theft Auto III' are acceptable games for my child. Better look at the back. Let's see... Hoodlum beating up someone with a baseball bat, guy with a machine gun mowing down cops, hookers...
      Boy, I don't know what this 'M' means, and I don't really want to squint to read the text under it.
      Oh well, I guess, since I don't know what this rating means, I'd better just blindly buy Timmy this game."

      You don't let your kid watch "The Ring". You don't let your kid play "Gran

  • it's already done. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joystickgenie ( 913297 ) <joleske@joystickgenie.com> on Thursday October 20, 2005 @07:40PM (#13840689) Homepage
    Well yah know, I like the idea of the rating system telling what the rating is for. Things like does the game have violence, sex, drugs use, and profanity. Wouldn't it be nice if those things are printed right on the box?

    Oh yeah they are already doing that, Right next to the one letter ESRB rating. Here let me give you a few examples:

    Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

    Mature (17+)
    Blood and Gore,
    Intense Violence,
    Strong Language,
    Strong Sexual Content,
    Use of Drugs

    The Sims 2

    Teen (13+)
    Crude Humor,
    Sexual Themes,
    Violence

    Halo 2

    Mature (17+)
    Blood and Gore,
    Violence

    God of War

    Mature (17+)
    Blood and Gore,
    Intense Violence,
    Nudity,
    Sexual Themes
    Strong Language

    This really seems like an example of people not paying attention to the rating labels. The extra description for what the title contains has been on games for a very long time now. If you want to know what is in the game read a little more then the big single letter in the rating box. Also each of these extra descriptors are already rated. That's the difference between some violence, violence, and intense violence.

    This stoplight rating system seems like it would be a step in the wrong direction. It would end up giving you less information.

    • But in too many stores, all that a parent can see is "EA Games The Sims 2 for PlayStation 2, rated Teen (13+)" because "Crude Humor, Sexual Themes, Violence" is on the back of the box, which is behind a locked glass door.

    • Well yah know, I like the idea of the rating system telling what the rating is for. Things like does the game have violence, sex, drugs use, and profanity. Wouldn't it be nice if those things are printed right on the box?

      Oh yeah they are already doing that, Right next to the one letter ESRB rating. Here let me give you a few examples:

      [snip]

      This stoplight rating system seems like it would be a step in the wrong direction. It would end up giving you less information.

      Similar things are now included on movie ra

  • Huh???? (Score:1, Redundant)

    by pappy97 ( 784268 )
    We can all debate the merits of whether ANY self-regulating group makes sense, but to suggest a self-regulating group step down?

    It's an exercise in futility. The only way to get rid of the ESRB (or render them useless) is to have governmental regulations. Good luck defeating the video game industry's lobby. Other independent groups can put out their own ratings, but good luck trying to get those ratings onto game boxes.

    While we are at it, let's ask the MPAA to step down. (Honestly, I wish the MPAA was el

  • A better solution (Score:4, Funny)

    by hambonewilkins ( 739531 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @08:19PM (#13840970)
    Every game should ship with an airhorn and a flashing light. Now, bear with me here: low-level games, like, say, Lion King or Mario Sunshine, will flash a green light (the light will be affixed to the top of the box and should be the size of a soda can). The airhorn will let out a mild sound, much like a bike horn when touched. This is warning parents - hey, there might be some jumping or kicking involved, but mostly it is okay.

    For, say, Grand Theft Auto, the game would ship with a giant red light (the size of your head) that flashes like a strobe light. An airhorn, much like those used on a tug boat, will sound when the game is picked up. That way, parents can know - "Hey, warning! I should pay attention to this!"

    Obviously we can't trust parents to see the big letter M on the front or take note of either the game's title or graphics on the box. Parents must just be picking up these boxes and staring straight ahead when they throw them on the counter. My solution of enormous siren/light combo will clearly inform parents and at a minimal cost of $5-25 per box.

  • It would be awesome if someone actually could sell a game with nudity in it these days. I remember back when Duke Nukem 3D was out and there wasn't any coverage but recently with the video game industry becoming increasingly mainstream we have a ban on all nudity.

    A video game containing but not allowing access to nudity (GTA) is switched to adult cause of some boobs and therefore EVERYONE BANS ITS SALE until there is a new version. So apparently the british can see tits on TV but we can't allow a 17+ mature

    • It would be awesome if someone actually could sell a game with nudity in it these days. I remember back when Duke Nukem 3D was out and there wasn't any coverage but recently with the video game industry becoming increasingly mainstream we have a ban on all nudity.

      That game allegedly had parental lock - there were also locked versions sold at WalMart and Australia.

      There was also a parental lock option available, meant to satisify complaints (but interfered with gameplay: the affected items were invisible b

  • Profanity Sex Violence (PSV) Ratings differ from the ESRB in that they... ...are inspired by the BTK killer?

    Next thing you know we'll be listening to nothing but commercial jingles on the radio and eating at Taco Bell.
  • This is a good idea. Describing the types of violence/mayhem/sex/etc. in games would go farther to inform parents of what they are buying their kids. Unfortunatly, as most of us know, a lot of parents can't be trusted to be "informed" and other gibberish like that. So what we need to do is take this PSV and attach some sort of suggested age. You know, "This game has comic mischief, but no dirty words or sex. Best for kids ages 10 and up, in general."

    That way, parents would get a better idea by just comparin

  • Just a minute... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Eli Gottlieb ( 917758 )
    For example, the movie, Minority Report, carries red for violence and profanity and yellow for sex.

    For all I try I simply can't remember anything close to sex in that film. They had nude female bodies, yes, but they were lying in a pool hooked up to machinery. Only someone who's totally perverted anyway would even think the word "sex" upon seeing the Precog's Temple. Other than that, I don't even recall a kissing scene.

    Let's not hand these people our video games until they can get their damned facts stra
    • They weren't even nude, they were almost fully clothed (arms and head weren't covered) in a skintight spandex-ish type of material. There was some sexual content in the beginning with the woman cheating on her husband, but it's not like it was something from Vivid Video.
  • Let's be honest most people outside of the games industry are morons.

    They believe Hot Coffee is horrendous and all. The fact is that code was NOT available in the retail package, a mod had to be used for it. There's about a million mods for Morrowind, each one can change the experience up from making it more mild, to making it M (the "real body" setup for instance adds nudity... There is a cat fighting mod, and others) This doesn't change the original rating of the game and it shouldn't! ESRB understand

  • All sex/violence not created equal (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thesandtiger ( 819476 ) on Friday October 21, 2005 @09:39AM (#13843900)
    How do they determine what's "more" violent? "More" sexually explicit? What's "better" for kids?

    Some examples from other forms of entertainment:

    Will the biases of the review board come out? I saw one television show that claimed to have "strong sexual content" and the only sexual content was two men kissing - and yet I've never seen *any* kind of "sexual content" warning, strong or otherwise, on shows where the equivalent (and more, really) heterosexual behavior is taking place.

    What about with violence? "The Passion of the Christ" was basically just a snuff film to anyone who isn't Christian, and yet, because it was Jesus in there, it's okay. And then compare that to any run of the mill kill fest flick, and see how people complain about the violence, even though it's so much less than the torture doled out on screen in TPotC.

    What about stuff like the South Park movie? Originally it was going to be given some absurd rating because of a few things - like the original title was "South Park: All Hell Breaks Loose" which got changed to the (somehow less "adult") title of Bigger, Longer and Uncut (which is only less adult if you're a fucking moron). In the "making of" extras, the creators were joking about how they took every complaint the ratings people had, made it 10x dirtier but *slightly* more subtle, and put it back in... And eventually got a lower rating because, basically, the board didn't get the jokes. (Not that I mind - I'm glad it had as wide an audience as possible because I do think the message was one worth spreading)

    To me, I think it is enough to say "Sex, Violence, Drugs" or whatever and leave it at that. Trying to rank what's "worse" - consensual anal sex onscreen or obscured non consensual sex - eating another human being or hundreds of people being blown up in a battle on a beach - two men kissing, or a straight couple doing everything but fucking on-screen - is best left up to the individual.

    This board thing is purely a political move. People are trying to show that they're doing something, even if that something is just a waste of time. The old ratings system was fine - just like any system, it didn't deal with people trying to get around it in unforseen ways.
  • Why not simply label games G, PG, PG13, R and NC-17? EVERYBODY is familiar with the movie ratings, and even those include descriptors now. It seems so simple, because parents will then know to compare an R rated game to an R rated movie, and they are probably familiar with the content contained in such a film. With the descriptors, certanly there would be much less confusion.

  • The "Jack Thompson" scheme (Score:3, Funny)

    by DavidLeblond ( 267211 ) <me&davidleblond,com> on Friday October 21, 2005 @12:08PM (#13845122) Homepage
    Obviously we should adopt a "Jack Thompson" scheme. This is where the rating is replaced with a letter representing which social outcast the game turns you into.

    For instance, Grand Theft Auto would be rated "CK" for Cop Killer.
    Sims 2 would simply be rated "P" for Pedophile.
    Seeing how Doom 3 is a murder simulator, it would obviously get an "M" rating.
    Lego Starwars would be rated "W" for Whore. Why? Well because P for Prostitute was already taken!
    • You-know-who was also suggesting "suicide simulators [lemon64.com]" as a category.

      In this game, most of the scenes in Episodes 2-3 are fatal unless you manage to kill the bandit on the one and only exact frame - usually, from the device that was used to try to kill the bandit.

      I suggest the letter 'S' - although it will be confused with "Super" in the same way 'M' gets confused with "Masterful".

Slashdot Top Deals

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Close