A Question For Americans - What Is Your Perception Of "Adults Only" Games?

[Di]

Generally, they contain highly offensive material. VERY offensive material. I wouldn't know, as I haven't even heard of one, except the initial version of Mahunt 2, which was edited down to M.

I also believe they are a waste of cash. Most major retailers will not carry AO titles, and this also makes them a waste of cash, as so few will ever even SEE the titles out.

 

[werepossum]

Personally, I don't really think on it.
I have been an adult longer than the rating system has been around, so it's not somthing I deal with. I am a parent but since I control what my daughter sees/plays so far as movies or games, I don't really follow it. I know my kid and what I feel she should be exposed to or can handle. She can watch a monster movie that is considered too scary/violent/etc for kids rated R, and she is just fine. No nightmares or any other problems. She knows its all make believe. Some other kids may not be the same. I think the rating system is just there for parents to no longer have to take an interest in what their kids are exposed to. If they just read the box, they would already know if it's something their kids should be playing.

Parenting your own child? Making decisions based on your child's level of maturity and sophistication? Dude, that's so 20th century. Congratulations.

For those with knee-jerk blame-the-conservatives reactions, remember that the left pushes regulation and outright bans as well, at least in the USA. Elizabeth Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Chuck Schumer, Tipper Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Barak Obama (to name a few off the top of my head) have all crusaded for or threatened to support game regulation or game bans to "protect the children". (I don't mean to exclude McCain, but I'm pretty sure he has no idea what a video game is.)

It's just great that when the far left and the far right agree on something, it's almost never something I agree with.

 

[Saskwach]

@Khell: I'd say that the reason for the 18 limit is that the line has to be drawn somewhere and that's where people decided to draw it. Let's look at the extremes of the scale. A 5 year old. This kid shouldn't be seeing sexual content, unless of course the parents decide otherwise. You can't legislate against parents doing what they think best for their kid. Now, a 30 year old. This adult knows what sex is and more than likely has had some. There's no harm in letting them watch it, unless they're just fucked up; that can't be helped. So unless you disagree with the above you should agree that the arbitrary number be set somewhere between 5 and 30. What number should that be? Lawmakers in America have said 18 so that's what everyone has to abide by; the principle is sound but the number will be argued over endlessly.

 

[Jeroen Stout]

The problem is not the M rating - y'see, ratings are good. They are nice. They're like reviews, warning us what we'll get.

The problem is people acting like ratings are important - shops not carrying AO-titles. Companies not making games with sexual content -or even just nudity!- because nobody'll sell them. It builds a wall right through the industry where if you'll have sexual content you'll be AO, meaning you have to appeal to the no-taste pervert circuit; there is a thin line of 'normal sexuality' in-between the children's world of Mario, Halo and Half-Life and the depraved world of XXX-Girls-With-CrOCKodiles.

I mean, when I see some games treading on their toes around sexuality, or even when I see the L-shaped bedsheet in movies, I want to scream at the screen "What the hell is wrong with you!" We're not hiding the content because it is ugly, we're hiding it because of some people who really should read Oscar Wildes oneliner: 'If man were meant to be nude he would have been born that way.'

Ever since Giants: Citizen Kabuto I've been sligthly upset at censorship to get a different rating. Not because the rating is wrong: because the shops and the people are wrong for dismissing a game that features a topless character.
...thank god for the patch that returned that game to normal.

The problem is people thinking it'll mess up people to see sex. It does not 'mess up' people. There is so much subtlety and ground in-between the happy-go-lucky life of sexual void-heads and hard-core pornography. And because we are so protective of people and children they never learn there is more in-between. So they'll become as repressed and guilt-ridden. Sex is not part of some other mystical world that one has to put a different label on. It's like farting in the bath. Sometimes the story just requires it.

 

[flyer13]

Ok... There's this thing called the Internet. There is no age restrictions on it (and if anyone tries to change that fact I'll shave their fucking balls of with a rusty cheese grater), and there are things on this "Internet" that is more damaging than the worst video game content imaginable. Well since the Internet didn't end society, I don't see why games need ratings anymore? After all, how can you compare the violence in manhunt to the shit on 4Chan? Manhunt becomes a saturday morning cartoon by comparison.

ummmm.... first of all, its called proxies and school/ home web filters. also, on porn sites, they ask you for your age..... soooo yeeeaaaa

 

[Pyro Paul]

the only game that comes to mind that has an AO rating in the us is the 'Fahrenheit/Indego prophicy directors cut.'

it only has an AO rating because it has scenes which actively depict sexual intercourse between two individuals as well as including some limited control in one of the scenes.


AO is for sex.
M is for violence.

simple as that.


people get on some type of high horse and question the rating system wondering how mass genocide in shooting games is more acceptable than the pleasurable and consentual sex in another. but really that is how it is, and it is that way because we are driven by a Judeo-Christian society. the Bible is a book filled with war, hence why violence is more acceptable.

 

[LisaB1138]

The rating system is wack, but not for the reasons so many of you claim.

The ratings systems rates games as passive entertainment like movies. As someone pointed out, there are plenty of kids in single digit years who have seen R (M) rated movies. Heck, mine are some of them.

Video games are not passive, however. There's a big difference between watching a bad guy bash a another (innocent) guy's head against a hard object until it bleeds and having to press buttons to make it happen in all its gory glory. Do you understand the difference?

Games should be rated not only on what images the player will see, but what actions the PC must perform. I could care less about man on monster violence despite the how much blood flies because PCs like Dante or Samanosuke are heros out to "save humanity." Contrast that with Kratos's hissy fit that is GOW2 where innocents are bashed to death so Kratos can advance in the game in the most deliberate and participatory fashion. And don't get me started on GTA.

I LOL at all the people crying for tits. What's the big deal? Funny, you're the one crying. I haven't seen a game yet where tits were "value added" to the gameplay. So for all you boys getting your jollies off by looking at digitized hooters, grow up. Funny how you blame "Christian/Catholic" values. Look around the world and show me how "Christian/Catholic" the middle east is. Wait--they're not and still no tits. Or Asia---wait again, no overwhelming Christian masses to keep the hooters in check, and yet I doubt very much kids are getting hentai for birthday presents. Gosh, could it be because they know some things are for adults?

The current rating system is very flawed, which is why I game and read reviews. But to act like any rating system is censorship is not justified. I mean, there's very little data showing that pesticides currently in use are dangerous to people, and yet folks have the right to know if something is "organic" because they've decided to avoid them just in case. I think parents should have similar information available to them about items their children want; I just think it should be good information.

So to answer the original question: what's an AO game? One where the PC performs actions that underage kids shouldn't be doing or visuals that would garner an NC17 rating.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

The rating system is wack, but not for the reasons so many of you claim.

The ratings systems rates games as passive entertainment like movies. As someone pointed out, there are plenty of kids in single digit years who have seen R (M) rated movies. Heck, mine are some of them.

Video games are not passive, however. There's a big difference between watching a bad guy bash a another (innocent) guy's head against a hard object until it bleeds and having to press buttons to make it happen in all its gory glory. Do you understand the difference?

Games should be rated not only on what images the player will see, but what actions the PC must perform. I could care less about man on monster violence despite the how much blood flies because PCs like Dante or Samanosuke are heros out to "save humanity." Contrast that with Kratos's hissy fit that is GOW2 where innocents are bashed to death so Kratos can advance in the game in the most deliberate and participatory fashion. And don't get me started on GTA.

I LOL at all the people crying for tits. What's the big deal? Funny, you're the one crying. I haven't seen a game yet where tits were "value added" to the gameplay. So for all you boys getting your jollies off by looking at digitized hooters, grow up. Funny how you blame "Christian/Catholic" values. Look around the world and show me how "Christian/Catholic" the middle east is. Wait--they're not and still no tits. Or Asia---wait again, no overwhelming Christian masses to keep the hooters in check, and yet I doubt very much kids are getting hentai for birthday presents. Gosh, could it be because they know some things are for adults?

The current rating system is very flawed, which is why I game and read reviews. But to act like any rating system is censorship is not justified. I mean, there's very little data showing that pesticides currently in use are dangerous to people, and yet folks have the right to know if something is "organic" because they've decided to avoid them just in case. I think parents should have similar information available to them about items their children want; I just think it should be good information.

So to answer the original question: what's an AO game? One where the PC performs actions that underage kids shouldn't be doing or visuals that would garner an NC17 rating.

I must admit that I'm perplexed. You have no problem with your kids watching a movie like Saw or Hostel, but then slam GTA, which is actually a great deal less graphic with it's violence?

While I agree with you that adding breasts to a game does not automatically make it better, you points on the rest of the world make no sense. Aside from the fact that the Middle East and Asia have very little to do with the ESRB to my knowledge, of the areas you cite; one is fiercely Muslim and the other contains a nominally-communist superpower with a very iffy record on human rights and a country that made a game where you feel up schoolgirls to see if they're witches.

Your final conclusion needs a bit of work as well. If an AO game is one that contains actions that underage kids shouldn't be doing, then most games would be Adults Only. Look at the Zelda games: vandalism, fighting, trespassing - if I had kids, those would be on my list of things not to do. The reality is the ESRB reserve the Adults Only rating for pornography, and if you look at the titles that have the rating, it's clear that that's the case.

 

[LisaB1138]

No, no, no, my kids may NOT watch Hostel or Saw. Rated R covers quite a gamut that includes movies like the Predator, Alien and Terminator serieses. These are movies my children have expressed interest in, that I have viewed and deemed OK.

My point about the rest of the world is valid in that someone argued the US ESRB raters were slaves to a "Christian/Catholic" ethic determined to foist these standards on the American public. However, in many parts of the world the ethic exists despite the lack of "Christian/Catholics." So these standards appear to be far more universal than just those pesky American "Christian/Catholics" who (apparently) keep the ESRB under their thumbs.

I agree that rating games is no easy task. Games are about conflict, so there is generally a "good guy" vs. a "bad guy." "Good" is clearly relative to bad. Is Jade a "bad guy" for breaking and entering all the Alpha section stations in BG&E? Most people would characterize her actions as just. Is Link carrying out his fighting, vandalism and trespassing for no other reason than personal gratification or is he struggling against "evil?" (Haven't played a single Zelda game.) Contrast that to the GTA series where one is rewarded for killing innocents and committing crimes with little consequence. Do you see the difference?

I think presentation also is also a component that must be considered. Is the game "cartoonish" or "lifelike" in its art style? Is the game universe meant to represent the "real world" or is it clearly fantasy? These are some of the things I look for when deciding what my kids get to play. Games like GTA, which features human on human violence in a lawless "true to life" setting where one is rewarded for bad behavior IMO should not be played by kids, yet I seem to be the only mom who still says no. IMO, GTA is an AO game. Maybe a warning like that will get it through Mommy America's thick brain that it's not for kids. Or am I the only one who shudders that crime is now "mainstream entertainment"? I mean, would people be as blase about the game if it were exploiting animals? Would people maybe decide the criminal violence portrayed in that game is suddenly AO if one of the characters were a dog man, and you were required to kill non-performing animals and winning fights meant bonuses? Think about it.

Ultimately my point is that as a parent there are certain things that my kids don't get to play for various reasons, most of which are not addressed by the ESRB in any useful, specific fashion. As you've pointed out, and I concur, it's not easy to come up with a three point laundry list of criteria for an AO game. Context matters, and context cannot be put into a 1x1 inch box with half of said box occupied by a giant letter that exists only to pigeon-hole a game for the lazy.

 

[Asehujiko]

All the chainsaw/flamethrower action in the world will only get you up to an M.
Find a way to sneak in some nudity(i wonder if something humongous like madden 2009 will get an AO if you find a way into the ea building a rename a random file tit.tga even though it's the texture of a licenced add about gametap) and it's an instant ticket to get less then 100 copies total sold.
Should you manage to make your game the centerpiece of a political shitstorm however, expect to sell millions regardless of the content. I could even start one now about GoW being "a symbolic reference to that we (rightwing) have to defend from a threat from within(leftwing)" and tack another 0 to the end of the sales figure of GoW 2.

It's not about the age of people playing it it's about sales.

From best to worst:
"Banned". Doing this is the 100% foolproof way of making sure EVERYBODY wants to see what's the hype about.
M/PG-13. Almost all of the well selling games are in this category. PG-13 is doing slightly better because of ea sports and Blizzard.
Bought out by ea. Crappy sequels result in crappy sales. It's a chronic disease that will eventualy kill the series or assimilate it into a drone genre(look at the new ra3 info and tell me if there's anything there that isn't ripped from either starcraft of previous games).
AO. No advetising. No retail. If ea is a slow and painful death, this is a shotgun to the face.

 

[Slingback78]

I really wish I knew why violence is more acceptable than nudity. I think it's because violence is harder to motivate in most and more useful. It's usually more useful to beat the crap out of someone than try to screw them.

That said, when I think of AO, I think of sex, not violence.

 

[LisaB1138]

Nudity is a big deal in video games because it only serves to titillate. There's no value added to the game. It's a publicity stunt to attract simple minds. "OMG BOOOOBS!" (See any GOW board for further clarification.) It's simple manipulation, pandering to male genitalia. I guess if there's any argument for how simple guys are, it's how they are so easily manipulated into thinking they have a right to see nekkid titties and being denied that right means there's something wrong with someone else. "What's the big deal?" they always ask. Funny how no one complained there weren't any tits in COD4. Seems like they're really not necessary for a good game; it's only when men find out they've been denied the possibility of tits that suddenly the game quality comes crashing down.

I could argue that sex has ruined as many lives or killed as many people as violence. As a matter of fact, it's one of the Big Three Motivators for Evil. (The others being money and power.) It's probably the most dangerous of the three actually. People underestimate its power and think they can control it.

 

[MichaelH]

Nudity is a big deal in video games because it only serves to titillate. There's no value added to the game. It's a publicity stunt to attract simple minds. "OMG BOOOOBS!" (See any GOW board for further clarification.) It's simple manipulation, pandering to male genitalia. I guess if there's any argument for how simple guys are, it's how they are so easily manipulated into thinking they have a right to see nekkid titties and being denied that right means there's something wrong with someone else. "What's the big deal?" they always ask. Funny how no one complained there weren't any tits in COD4. Seems like they're really not necessary for a good game; it's only when men find out they've been denied the possibility of tits that suddenly the game quality comes crashing down.

I could argue that sex has ruined as many lives or killed as many people as violence. As a matter of fact, it's one of the Big Three Motivators for Evil. (The others being money and power.) It's probably the most dangerous of the three actually. People underestimate its power and think they can control it.

You're pandering in sexist stereotypes. It's not helping your case any more than if you started saying "Black people/Asian people/Pygmy people love tits in video games!"

All men do not care if their games have breasts in them, and those people that do care are not all men. My girlfriend passes out high-fives whenever her GTA character gets laid, so stop with the "men are pigs" nonsense.

And you cannot say "tits provide titillation" with one breath and then say they add nothing to the game with the next. They provide titillation, atmosphere, sleaze, comedy, plot points, excitement, all the same things that nudity provides in every other medium.

 

[MichaelH]

Wow maybe its just me and not having stepped foot inside a church within a few decades but I always (apparently foolishly) blamed evil on people being worthless scum. How could I not see that you can stick boobs in front of a good person and suddenly they are "ruining lives" ...

Rationales like "sex kills more people than violence" makes me feel like my head is going to split open. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow.

I wonder if sex kills more people than heart disease.