Games to receive new rating

[SuperSlim]

I just read in the paper today that there is going to be this new E-10+ rating for games.

IMO it's straight retarded. There is already T and that is for 13 and over. And basically this new rating is supposed ot help parents choose better what games to get for their kids. I mean is it really that hard to know what games are too violent for little kids and which ones aren't?

[DS]

Sometimes it is. This new rating just simplifys the E-T that was already in place. It helps categorize the E rating into more specific ratings so parents can know what to rent for the little ones.

[DS]

In other words, what's it going to hurt?

[Drakul]

I mean is it really that hard to know what games are too violent for little kids and which ones aren't?
Its kinda easy to tell whats suitible just by the front cover or the name of the game.
http://www.ebgames.com/ebx_assets/product_images/221279.jpg
A blood soaked razor and part of the title written in blood.Kinda tells you its not for kids.
http://www.dlc.fi/~vpd/ps2mappi/0711719296027.jpg
Bright title and a cute lil cat thingy with a baseball cap.

I know you get a few games that look cute but the characters swear enough to offend satan but just by looking at the cover or reading the back and looking at the little screenshots on the back,you can tell what age group its for.
Was that even on topic? :wtf:

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

In other words, what's it going to hurt?

[El Santo]

I know you get a few games that look cute but the characters swear enough to offend satan but just by looking at the cover or reading the back and looking at the little screenshots on the back,you can tell what age group its for.

Ah, but then you throw in things like "Conker's Bad Fur Day" (Rated M) and the "judging a game by its cover" theory starts to get a bit muddled.

[SuperSlim]

it isn't gonna hurt but it's just stupid. Is it that hard to just leave things the way they are?

[Kane Knight]

In other words, what's it going to hurt?
Parenting skills, for one thing. Look at the retarded cunt who's suing Wal-Mart because she bought her kid an Evanescence CD, assuming that the lack of parental advisory label meant it was ok.

RESPONSIBLE parents are already looking into and informed about the games their kids are getting. This is a crutch for bad parents to display even worse parenting skills.

The real question is "what's it going to help?"

It provides a new conflicting values system, in which games which are E 10 include violence on the same scale as TV Y7 programming, the values of which may or may not allign itself with your value system as to what's acceptable and what's not.

Why waste all this time and effort to a system with no discernable positive effect?

[DS]

So having a more specific rating is going to hurt parents who weren't sure in the first place? Agreed, parents who are that concered should look into what they are getting if they are that worried, but I don't see why having a new rating to explain that there is some violence in it that may not be suited for just everyone would hurt anything.

[Penner]

God, the parents aren't going to know every single game and what's in it and shit. This isn't gonna hurt anyone, so what's the point in arguing about it?

[VJW]

Agreed, it's not going to hurt anybody so why bicker about it? Of course, it's not going to stop all parents from buying games like Vice City for six year olds but it doesn't affect me so . . .

[Kane Knight]

So having a more specific rating is going to hurt parents who weren't sure in the first place? Agreed, parents who are that concered should look into what they are getting if they are that worried, but I don't see why having a new rating to explain that there is some violence in it that may not be suited for just everyone would hurt anything.
Parents who weren't sure in the first place? Yeah, like it's that hard to get information on video games these days. This benefits people who are bad parents, and seek to use someone else's judgement as a surrogate for parenting.

Penner, parents don't need to know every game, only the ones their kids are interested in. Please, don't be retarded, folks.

[Kane Knight]

Agreed, it's not going to hurt anybody so why bicker about it? Of course, it's not going to stop all parents from buying games like Vice City for six year olds but it doesn't affect me so . . .
Stupidity hurts society.

The morons who think a ratings system makes a difference (instead of wasting time and money) are the same ones buying into the GTA defense. The same ones who want your games banned in the first place.

Basically, y'all are supporting pandering to folks who REALLY just want to ban violent video games. The only reason the ESRB system is in place to begin with is because the video game industry is too chicken to stand up and say "Hey, we're not responsible for your kid being dumb enough to shoot a school up."

The ESRB system was not added out of a sense of altruism, it was added out of a sense of "let's save our asses from more lawsuits."

Who does it hurt? Possibly nobody. Possibly. But quite possibly society, as we slowly work our way deeper into the "It wasn't my fault!" Train of thinking, and quite LIKELY video game fans, who will likely lose this battle.

Of course, neither one really matters.

Now, the question I have is why nobody's looking at the notion that many of the games currently out that would get an E 10 rating are on par with violence that, on TV is suitable for 7 year olds? Does this sound like a viable guide to ANYONE?

[SuperSlim]

I think KK has said it best. It's a crutch.

Let's look at this situation here(hypothetically speaking)

A parent goes out and buys a game for their child... rated E 10.

The child plays it and the parent then discovers the stuff that is on the game. Considers it not suitable for the child. What is the parent most likely to do? Somethin stupid. Try to rally up somethin or sue or whatever because they don't beleive the rating system was right or somethin. You know that is going to happen. You know that in the end they are going to target the harder rated games.

but what I am still not understanding at all is why are they targeting these games that their kids play and not the movies that they let their kids watch. Some of the stuff out there is outright not appropriate for kids and yet that's perfectly fine. But these games are supposed to influence kids to violence?

Ignorance is not acceptable whenit comes to the law. Why should it be allowed when it comes to game choosing?

[Kane Knight]

Ignorance is not acceptable whenit comes to the law. Why should it be allowed when it comes to game choosing?
Well, let's be fair. Suits like the Wal-Mart Evanescence suit, suits against video game companies/movie studios/etc generally ARE done out of ignorance, and the law lets them see their day in court.

"I was too stupid to figure out that I should listen to this CD/Watch this movie/Play or at least READ ABOUT this game, and I find it unsuitable for kids. I want money!"

[Hired Hitman]

Why not rate like it were a movie?

i.e. V-Violence L-Language N-Nudity etc. could add Strong/Mild to help judge.

[Kane Knight]

Why not rate like it were a movie?

i.e. V-Violence L-Language N-Nudity etc. could add Strong/Mild to help judge.
They only do that in the states for TV.

On movies, you sometimes get descriptors, but usually not.

Games, however, already do this. Rated ( Whatever) for strong language, mild violence, and adult situations with Penguins.

Apparently, it's insufficient information.

[SuperSlim]

and besides Evanecense is not a bad CD... well to me it isn't but they do have that stuff on the back of each game out.

violence, blood and gore, nudity, mature sexual themes, mature language, mild language, cartoonish violence. All of that stuff is on the back of every game that is out. So bascailly this comes down to parents refusin to read. refusin to trun the game around and look on the back. Research is already done for them.

[Drakul]

Thats how we do it here in Europe
http://www.pegi.info/index.html

[SuperSlim]

what would go under the "fear" rating?

[Hired Hitman]

Horror probably...

[Kane Knight]

Thats how we do it here in Europe
http://www.pegi.info/index.html
Does http://83.223.83.66/pegi/img/ratXL/sex.gifchange if it involve gays?

Do they fill in different colors http://83.223.83.66/pegi/img/ratXL/discrimination.gifdepending on the discrimination involved?

and besides Evanecense is not a bad CD... well to me it isn't but they do have that stuff on the back of each game out.
The Evanescence Live CD contains "fuck." It doesn't sport a parental advisory warning. For some reason, Wal-Mart is to blame. Just like they were to blame when Rockstar put out GTA VC/3. Ignoring the fact that the ESRB ratings and parental advisory warnings are both voluntary, and Wal-Mart shouldn't have to screen in-depth for content.

"I'm not educated enough to know that what the industry deems acceptable might not be what I deem acceptable."

Meanwhile, even with a stronger warning system, the question of content can't be broken down four or five words on the back of a game box. However, it's not that hard to pick up a magazine or look at reviews online. You'll get a far better idea of what your kid is getting into than if you simply saw "violence" on the back of a box.

[Drakul]

Horror probably...
You would think so but I can't remember seeing it on anything like Resident Evil or anything.Infact I can't remember seeing a game with any of the logos other than bad language or violence.Even GTA SA only has them but not "sexual themes" "drugs" or "discrimination" logos.

[DS]

Either way, it's added.

[Optik]

All games come with the little list next to the rating in the back like you all said so that should be enough. For instance, GTA SA has blood and gore, intense violence, strong language, strong sexual content, and use of drugs, so if a parent is stupid enough to buy that for a little kid despite all of that I really don't think there is anyway to get through to these dense people....

[VJW]

The thing that pisses me off a lot about parents going after violent games is that it's usually GTA. It's pretty fucking obvious that they choose to go after it because it's already gone through hell. Why not go after True Crime, Driv3r, Mercenaries, or Metal Gear Solid? All of those games are definitely less cartoonish then GTA. GTA has always had that cartoonish feel IMO. The world looks real but some things are not logical in the series. And let's remember that you don't have to do bad shit in the game. People can do taxi missions, ambulance missions, trucker missions, and fire truck missions. I

[Drakul]

Yeah I remember on TV here they had a discussion about GTA and how evil it,and other games are.
they went like this:

presenter:..and tell us what the whole point of GTA is.

kid (looks about 8): You have to run around and kill as many people as you can for points.

and I'm sitting watching this and thinking "No its not :mad: you dont HAVE to kill people" well you do at somepoints but they mean like mass killing.The show was "Tonight with Trevor McDonald" on ITV maybe look up that episode on kazaa or whatever,if you have it.

[SuperSlim]

yeah I hate how they have these idiots on these shows when they ask what is this game all about junior.

"It's about killing poeple."

I mean goodness, get a real gamer. Get someone that actually really plays the game and they can tell you it's about completing those missions and in them you may have to kill someone you may not have to. And they do always always go after the same games.

GTA or Mortal Kombat. makes me sick.

[Drakul]

Well its always either someone who never touched the game or a young kid that obviously wont follow the story.The show also showed a guy in a darkened room playing manhunt with a crazy phsycotic look on his face,black t shirt and messy hair and the usual "games are evil because" thing being said at the same time.