How would you rate games if it was at your sole discretion?

[Jeffersonian]

None, industry, or government?

I'm definitely against all ratings (and especially organized government), but I'm beginning to wonder if the industry should actually quit rating and just let the government intervene.

games would actually be more violent, and the game industry would actually make more money, games would cost more, and fewer people would be willing to play, if they didn't care enough to pay. That means the most hardcore gamers would play more games, and people who were offended by violence or didn't want to play wouldn't play.

I mean, the game industry would be seen as criminal, but it would be hardcore.

Since the game industry regulates itself, they know how to water it down, and keep in under control. If the government did it, then they could never get a handle on it, and games would be more of specialty.

Of course, like I said, I believe centralized ratings are unacceptable in any way, shape, or form, but I'd not mind if the government intervened (compared to the industry watering them down), to make examples out of gamers. In other words, only gamers who would risk going to jail would be the ones who would play and that would cut down on all the casual gamers bogging the hardcore gamers down.

[SoulsCollective]

I support a rating system per se, I don't think anyone has any issues with that, the issue is with silly ratings, interference with the process or, in Australia, the lack of an R-18+ rating. Generally, I think the levels of classification we have down under are good and games are generally properly rated, we just need a proper scale such that games above MA-15+ aren't effectively banned and can be accorded their proper place.

[XS_Rich]

Of course, like I said, I believe centralized ratings are unacceptable in any way, shape, or form, but I'd not mind if the government intervened (compared to the industry watering them down), to make examples out of gamers. In other words, only gamers who would risk going to jail would be the ones who would play and that would cut down on all the casual gamers bogging the hardcore gamers down.

Why are you against ratings so much?

An uninformed parent buying games for their child needs some kind of guide just like they get with films.

I'm not sure why in principle this is so wrong?

[Jeffersonian]

Why are you against ratings so much?

An uninformed parent buying games for their child needs some kind of guide just like they get with films.

I'm not sure why in principle this is so wrong?
Not every child can be psychologically harmed by graphically violent or sexually explicit video games. Nor are they likely at all to harm another child because of game violence. It's so unbelievably rare for someone to kill someone from imitating video game violence, that it's not worth worrying about at the expense of having less violence in our games.

The main reason, like I said, is that they water games down. Since the rating system has become stricter, games have become much less violent.

They also take time to submit for rating and to await a rating. That holds the release of a game up longer than the ESRB is willing to admit. Also, having the ESRB ties a lot of the game industry's budget up, which is more than most would think.

Basically, if the game developers didn't have to worry about their games being marked violent, then they could make the games a lot more violent.

TBH, I don't believe anyone ever has killed someone from imitating video game violence. The stories you hear about sound extremely faked.

I also expect video games to be criminalized, anyway, in the next few years. Obama's statement after the FEPA was defeated a few years ago was majoritarily taken to mean that he absolutely opposed such legislation, but he VERY subtly said in the same sentence that he was open to it.

[XS_Rich]

Not every child can be psychologically harmed by graphically violent or sexually explicit video games. Nor are they likely at all to harm another child because of game violence. It's so unbelievably rare for someone to kill someone from imitating video game violence, that it's not worth worrying about at the expense of having less violence in our games.

The main reason, like I said, is that they water games down. Since the rating system has become stricter, games have become much less violent.

They also take time to submit for rating and to await a rating. That holds the release of a game up longer than the ESRB is willing to admit. Also, having the ESRB ties a lot of the game industry's budget up, which is more than most would think.

Basically, if the game developers didn't have to worry about their games being marked violent, then they could make the games a lot more violent.

TBH, I don't believe anyone ever has killed someone from imitating video game violence. The stories you hear about sound extremely faked.

I also expect video games to be criminalized, anyway, in the next few years. Obama's statement after the FEPA was defeated a few years ago was majoritarily taken to mean that he absolutely opposed such legislation, but he VERY subtly said in the same sentence that he was open to it.

The concern is not that children will go on postal rampages and kill people. The concern is that they will see things that the parents don't want them to see. That they will have certain types of behaviour 'rewarded' that in the real world will not be rewarded, and at a young age, the flashing lights of the computer game will serve as a more memorable moral lesson than that which the parent imparts.

Would you let a five year old watch a :banana::banana::banana::banana:o? If not, why not? Why would this argument be any different with a computer game?

[Jeffersonian]

The concern is not that children will go on postal rampages and kill people. The concern is that they will see things that the parents don't want them to see. That they will have certain types of behaviour 'rewarded' that in the real world will not be rewarded, and at a young age, the flashing lights of the computer game will serve as a more memorable moral lesson than that which the parent imparts.

Would you let a five year old watch a :banana::banana::banana::banana:o? If not, why not? Why would this argument be any different with a computer game?
Well, suppose the parent is trying to stop someone from playing wolfenstein, because the parent doesn't like their kid being taught that nazis are bad?

As for your question, definitely. If the 5 year liked the :banana::banana::banana::banana:o, then that's good for the 5 year old and the 5 year old watching :banana::banana::banana::banana:o doesn't affect anyone else.

:banana::banana::banana::banana:o isn't harmful in itself.

[Chris_redfield]

It certainly doesn't make sense to be against all ratings because as previously suggested. As a parent it is your responsibility to monitor what kind of media your children are consuming and ratings systems for games help parents (a lot of whom would have grown up without owning a console,) to make an informed decision on whether or not a title is appropriate for their child. One of the reasons why Wolfenstein gathered so much negative press was the people at the time didn't fully understand the videogame medium and were frightened because it gave a realistic 3d environment in which you could shoot people. Wolfenstein caused the public to panic much like L'Arrivée d'un train à La Ciotat did in 1895 when people who had never seen a film before ducked to avoid the cinema screen because they thought the train was going to come right out of the screen and kill them.

games would actually be more violent, and the game industry would actually make more money, games would cost more, and fewer people would be willing to play, if they didn't care enough to pay. That means the most hardcore gamers would play more games, and people who were offended by violence or didn't want to play wouldn't play.

This is quite a wild claim. The main reason being is that each country classifies videogames very differently, and as each nation has their own history different subject material may be more sensitive in certain regions than it is in others. Take WW2 games for instance, before they are released in Germany they have to be localised and have things like Swastikas taken out of them so as not to cause offence. But for the rest of the world if you want to make a game that involves killing humans the most acceptable thing to do is to cover the 'bad guys,' in Nazi uniforms. The second most acceptable thing would be to put them in a turban and have them shout jihad.

Games would become more violent and require more money to develop? Have you been living in a cave? Have you not heard of the nintendo wii? Bringing gaming to an entirely new demographic where the games are not violent at all (the only two titles on this platform I can think of that carry an 18 certificate are House of The Dead Overkill and Mad World.) They are short, fun and cuddly and most of them are just cheap ports. There are also games on other platforms that are also catering to this new demographic that Nintendo has uncovered, the evolution of the 'casual gamer.' Titles like Peggle, prove that you don't have to be dark, expensive and gritty to be succesful. (Well maybe peggle extreme but thats more tongue in cheek than anything else.)

I don't understand what you mean by the game industry would be seen as illegal and more hardcore if the government were to take charge of classifications. As the games industry is a universal one who's government would be in control of the classifications? Would all the governments of the world unite with some sort of World Wide videogame monitoring agency (which wouldn't happen because most countries are too busy arguing over who keeps troops where to even initiate a discussion about game classification.) Or would we just leave it up to the Justice League? (Not going to happen either because they are fictional. Sorry.)

At the moment in the UK most ratings are carried out by PEGI, however these are not legally standing (a shop could sell a 16 to someone under 16,) however under current UK law some games are required classification from the BBFC if they contain certain content. This is set to change though with the BBFC handing over the reins to the Video Standards Council who will use the PEGI system in order to certify games, and any games intended for gamers over the age of 12 will have a legally binding age attributed it. So while a 12 year old can buy a 16 classified PEGI rated game now, they wont be able to in the future.

I think that there should be a seperate body to classify games because the BBFC has done a decent job but Videogames cannot be classified in the same ways as film because videogames, although they share many aesthetic similarities to film (games have and still do use a lot of the techniques of cinema in order to try and make games seem more realistic, one example is lens flare in games. Games are a completely different animal, the main difference between these is interaction.

My main worry with the balance in power shifting to the Video Standards Council is that they don't seem to fully understand videogames either. In on article a representative from the VSC stated "A single act of violence in a film will be seen once, the single use of a sexual expletive in a film will be heard once. This being the case, it is entirely legitimate to put the act of violence or sexual expletive into the context of the overall film. This is not the case for games."

For starters with the advent of DVD, Blu-Ray and websites like Youtube clips from films are taken and reproduced, and rewatched everyday. Hell, I remember borrowing a copy of Basic Instinct from a mate on VHS and the famous interogation scene was rife with fuzzy lines and interference because he had blatantly watched the same part of the video again and again taking that scene from its framework rendering it into a piece of :banana::banana::banana::banana:ography.

The whole idea of context doesn't really apply to videogames, still a vast amount of games come out each month where they don't require a plot in order to move the action forward. There is no context for the action of the game to be placed into because no context is required in order to make the game enjoyable.

They also make it sound like games are not capable of creating a decent enough plot within which to place violence into context which anyone having played FFVII, Portal, or Half Life would know is complete nonsense. Games are evolving and growing up and right now they with public acceptance of videogames being at an all time high thanks to the Wii and we are also seeing more and more independant titles like the Path and the Graveyard pushing games away from the standard 'progress from point a to point b killing everything in the way,' formulae. All I hope is that the videogame industry continues to mature so that some gamers will grow some pubes and follow suit.

[Jeffersonian]

Like I said, having ratings hurts gamers. Here are the down sides of having ratings:
Ratings tend to limit mature content. That is, a developer may have to tone the content down to achieve a certain rating.
It takes time to screen and rate a game thus holding the release of a game up.
The developers have to put money into the IDSA to fund the ESRB.

That's why ratings suck. Games would might cost a little less (from the money saved from developers not having to belong to the IDSA), be released a little earlier, and have more mature content.

My other point is that parents shouldn't have a final say in what their kids play and view. I know that the theory of self-ownership, which I hold dearly and forever is unpopular, but kids need to be allowed to make their own decisions.

[trekie86]

As for your question, definitely. If the 5 year liked the :banana::banana::banana::banana:o, then that's good for the 5 year old and the 5 year old watching :banana::banana::banana::banana:o doesn't affect anyone else
Wow...don't know what to say to that.

[3Z3VH]

I honestly believe they should have a rating for each type of explicit content, such as Nudity, Drug Use, Violence, Language, etc.

That way, a game like Age of Conan would be rated high (18+) on Nudity, Average (13+) on Violence, and nil on Drug use and Violence, while a game like GTA4 would be rated high on all four counts.

This would be a LOT more informative for unknowing parents when buying games for their children. Some parents out there couldn't care less about violent games, but don't want their kids to see boobs (not quite sure the rationale, but those parents do exist). With the current rating system, all they see is an MA rating, but no real indication as to why. Even if the developer took it upon themselves to clarify, there are no guarantees.

[Reznik Akime]

A rating system should be in place, yes. I don't think that's the hindrance. The hindrance is parents who want the government to step in and regulate these kinds of things instead of just sitting down with the child and telling them that what they see in the video game isn't acceptable in the real world. If you kill someone, you will have to pay for it. I grew up playing Doom, Mortal Kombat and the like when I was pretty young, but you could bet I was getting a lecture every time I wanted to play it about how what I see in the game isn't real and that I had better not try and imitate it. Its sad to see that parents just aren't involved with their kids anymore. It's like their children are just pets or something that they want to be involved with at their convenience.

-Edit-
Holy thread resurrection, I didn't realize this thread was several months old. :doh: