Age Ratings: Guidelines or Must-follow rules?

[tharglet]

I think the age ratings are needed - so that people are aware the game deals with things that might not be suitable for all. If a game has a large "18" marker on it, it's a good signal to check what the game is like, before procuring it for someone not 18 yet.

I think that games shouldn't be sold to underage people - the ratings only deal with minor ages anyway. I think it's up to the parent to decide and take responsibility for the games their minors are playing.

I think the ratings board (ERSB?) that provides the bullet points on the kind of material in the game is a good idea - gives a one-stop guide of what sort of content garnered the rating. Not everyone is an expert or knowledgeable as to what different games contain.

 

[twcblaze]

Well, if your job depends on it, say if you were a retailer, then in that case it's definitely a must-follow no-shit-bullshit rule: you do not sell M games to anyone under 18, and you don't sell T games to precocious little tykes, and yes, I did go out of my way to use precocious in a post.

However comma, if you're a parent, they're guidelines at best. That all comes down to knowing your kids though, my parents let me play all sorts of games, everything from harvest moon to grand theft auto, but some kids are either too young or too dumb to handle certain mature content, and that's the whole reason we have the rating system... don't think of it as a "minimum age limit" think of it more as a high water mark for where just about anyone should be able to deal with the content of the game.

 

[Therumancer]

Age limits in all forms in video games are bull. I can see some sense in pornographic material, but in general it's like saying minors can't read A Tale of Two Cities because it's violent. Children are far smarter than most people give them credit for.

Smarter does not mean mature. One of the things about adults is that in most cases we know when we're acting "immature" and can turn it on and off, kids cannot. Yes, this means that a lot of the adults acting like douches online are generally doing it with the full knowlege that they are being immature douches. Odd as it might sound, that is a way of letting your hair down so to speak.

What's more your arguement would ultimatly mean halting the progress of gaming as a medium, which is a no-no. I mean, who says games can't be porn or involve pornographic material? If you don't rate them properly because your not going there, the it means you can't ever go there based on your own arguements. That means no sex scenes and so on.

Wait, what? First, how does anything I say mean that gaming as a medium would halt all progress? How would suddenly stripping games of arbitrary age ratings prevent innovation in games? I said it would make sense to mark pornographic games as such. That makes sense as they're somewhat of a special case in gaming. Having something to identify them as such doesn't mean you can't continue to make them.

Also, I'm not understanding the first paragraph. Ratings for video games have nothing to do with their maturity(violence, gore, nudity, swearing, drug use, etc. all seem to actually be immature to me.) Nor does age equal maturity.

Yes, age has a lot to do with maturity. Just because kids think they are mature does not make it so. While it can be argued that there are exceptions, one cannot make rules based around the exceptions, laws have to be consistant and apply to everyone.

As far as why ratings would have the effect that I mention, it has to do with adult material and how it's legislated. There is a divide between "adult" and "non-adult" media that is rather extreme, the jump between R and X and the rules to display those materials for sale, or show them in theaters are very differant.

In removing video game ratings entirely you would ultimatly be making it impossible for them to achieve an "R" or even "X" rating, leading to them being regulated as a group based on potential content.

Understand that ratings as they exist now are not run by the goverment but by private industry. It's an alternative to heavy handed goverment regulation. In theory the industry choosing to police itself by assigning the ratings. If the industry stops policing itself then the goverment is going to wind up doing it, and the goverment isn't exactly going to be nice about it.

The biggest problem with the ratings system is that while by and large private and voluntary is that it has gotten too political itself, leading to the over-rating of games.

Do some reading on things like the ESRB it's not directly a goverment agency.

 

[Therumancer]

In the UK, age ratings are the law. Although whether anyone gives a damn once you've left the shop is another question entirely. Ultimately, it boils down to "you wouldn't want to show your kids an 18 movie, yet you're fine with giving them an 18 game?"

The major differance being that in an "R" rated movie you could for example see two people get naked and have graphic, kinky, sex and as long as they didn't show actual penetration it would be fine. The "Erotic Thriller" genere has been pushing this line for a while unlike many other generes of movies.

In an "M" rated game, rather than grappling with the ESRB the guys doing the game might rate their "T" rated game with some breast nudity and making out an "M" rated game.

The result being that when a parent looks at an "M" rated game they think of say the "Alien Sideboob" in "Mass Effect" and figure "so what" given that they themselves watched movies with lots of titties bouncing around as kids, or got together to watch horror movies with their girlfriend/boyfriend or whatever.

"Scream" sort of made a crack on this back in the day with a girl telling her boyfriend she wouldn't have sex with him, but would give him the "PG-13" version before taking of her shirt.

The problem being that the inconsitincy with the ratings leads people to the impression that a lot of content being slated for an "M" audience is absolutly fine for teens and a younger crowd. You look at 20 differant "M" rated games and you might find 3 that deserve the rating, the rest including content no worse than a horror movie teens would have been cuddling during since almost the dawn of cinema.

 

[The Procrastinated End]

Unless it's rated for adults and the kid isn't 5 then the ratings are pointless because after a few moments of 'wow look at the gore' it stops being all that important.

 

[Therumancer]

@Therumancer

... I have actually had enough of you for today... seriously if you are only going to quote peoples comments and talk about their flaws, then you should probably leave, unless you feel like actually saying something on topic that is

Actually I'm on topic, and you might want to reconsider engaging in debate here if you can't deal with people who disagree with you.

Truthfully though if you ever bothered to read my posts you'd notice I'm actually more on "your side" than against you, since I'm talking about lowering game ratings, and saying that most of the "M" rated games you might be playing ARE fine for a "T" audience. I simply disagree with getting rid of the ratings system all together.

I imagine you missed that bit though.

 

[Woodsey]

Guide-lines.

Honestly though, people like PEGI are far too harsh (they don't even rate things based on context) and kids know what's real and what isn't. Obviously you're not going to give GTA IV to a 5-year-old, but there comes a point where ratings become almost irrelevant.

 

[Rocking Thunder]

I think it is the guardians judgement. While the current parents cannot really judge their kids that well and thus we get the 12 year old on xbox live, as that generation grows up I think that they will really be able to know what is right for their children. My paretns understood the system well enough, even though they wernt games themselves, and it came to my benefit, because they allowed me to play M rated video games when I was mature enough (of corse for me that was 12, but I was a fairly independant kid to start with, and I was the rare 12 year old kid who was fun to play with). But getting back to the point, it really is the guardians choice, because age does not judge maturity, but parents sure as heck can.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Age limits in all forms in video games are bull. I can see some sense in pornographic material, but in general it's like saying minors can't read A Tale of Two Cities because it's violent. Children are far smarter than most people give them credit for.

I fail to see how the act of coitus is more psychologically damaging than photo-realistic decapitation.

 

[amucha98]

.

 

[MrHero17]

It's a guideline for parents, people care about their children being exposed to certain things more then others. Some stuff is also badly rated so it's up to people to do a bit of research. I remember how when I was younger my friend had to convince his mom to let him get Smash Bros 64 becuase it was rated Teen. I'm surprised Brawl was ratted Teen and not E10 as well. I've also never been able to figure out why Halo is rated M, I think it's just that there's a bias against games compared to film when it comes to rating.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

Age limits in all forms in video games are bull. I can see some sense in pornographic material, but in general it's like saying minors can't read A Tale of Two Cities because it's violent. Children are far smarter than most people give them credit for.

Smarter does not mean mature. One of the things about adults is that in most cases we know when we're acting "immature" and can turn it on and off, kids cannot. Yes, this means that a lot of the adults acting like douches online are generally doing it with the full knowlege that they are being immature douches. Odd as it might sound, that is a way of letting your hair down so to speak.

What's more your arguement would ultimatly mean halting the progress of gaming as a medium, which is a no-no. I mean, who says games can't be porn or involve pornographic material? If you don't rate them properly because your not going there, the it means you can't ever go there based on your own arguements. That means no sex scenes and so on.

Wait, what? First, how does anything I say mean that gaming as a medium would halt all progress? How would suddenly stripping games of arbitrary age ratings prevent innovation in games? I said it would make sense to mark pornographic games as such. That makes sense as they're somewhat of a special case in gaming. Having something to identify them as such doesn't mean you can't continue to make them.

Also, I'm not understanding the first paragraph. Ratings for video games have nothing to do with their maturity(violence, gore, nudity, swearing, drug use, etc. all seem to actually be immature to me.) Nor does age equal maturity.

snip

I never said anything about government regulation. That's something else entirely, especially considering that it's currently illegal for minors to purchase M rated games, and California is heading towards banning violent games in general. As far as other nations, Australia is just plain sad in their regulations.

And no, age does not equal maturity, and why does someone have to be mature to enjoy a videogame? What's so wrong with that? Also, see the part where I said ratings that exist now have nothing to do with maturity.

Age limits in all forms in video games are bull. I can see some sense in pornographic material, but in general it's like saying minors can't read A Tale of Two Cities because it's violent. Children are far smarter than most people give them credit for.

I fail to see how the act of coitus is more psychologically damaging than photo-realistic decapitation.

Then you fail reading comprehension. Notice I said pornography, which while porn would cover sex, porn is done in a way to get people off, so it doesn't cover all sex.

snip

Actually you can't read a Tale of Two Cities, because it's like smashing your head against a brick wall.

OT: I just turned 17, so as far as I'm concerned age limits can go fuck themselves (except for the voting age limit)

I finished that book at 14 and loved it. It's one the greatest pieces of literature in the English language.

 

[Trivun]

I'd say guidelines, but with rules attached. That is, a legal requirement that the guidelines must be followed (so, rules), unless the person buying the game can prove they're mature enough to play the game sensibly. That is, without all the teabagging and TKing and smack talk that only a ten-year-old will actually use (though general smacktalk would be fine).

Now if only we could find some decent way of being able to prove people's maturity, we'd be all set .

 

[Altorin]

guidelines, but for parents, not anyone else

if the parent uses it as a guideline and deems it inappropriate, then it's their call

it's always their call

 

[TiefBlau]

Violence and sex are considered childish and taboo specifically because we forbid children from seeing it. It's circular. If we treated blood and sex as natural elements of life, the negative stimuli from seeing them wouldn't be there.

Even if you don't agree with this though, surely you'd have to believe that it's the parents' responsibility to properly educate their children about violence and sex, and to decide what's right for their children. Not some standardized rating system.

 

[Joe Matsuda]

all age ratings are just guidelines for parents...lol this reminds me of argueing my way into R-rated movies back in the day...

"Listen, I've had sex, my friends are drug addicts and speak only in curse words, and I've seen my fair share of violently killed bodies just from the news alone...

"...So what the hell does this movie have that I haven't already experienced??"

 

[Geekosaurus]

I'd say guideline, but that's because we've all watched films with a rating above our age. However I don't think parents take game ratings as seriously as film rating. I'm sure parents wouldn't let their seven year old son watch an 18-rated film, but they're more than happy for them to be playing GTA.

 

[Digital_Utopia]

A guideline - however, essentially as with all types of entertainment, it really depends on how quickly the child understands that what you do or can do in a game is not necessarily what you should do in real life. Some kids understand that concept fairly early, while some are still seeking it in their 30s

 

[OceanRunner]

It's more a case of what the child understands than what affects them. Mature games contain harsh language which kids don't immediately realise is offensive and/or violence and/or horror elements which they would most likely find frightening. Parents need reminding that a large part of the responsibility lies with them deciding what their children can and can't cope with.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Age limits in all forms in video games are bull. I can see some sense in pornographic material, but in general it's like saying minors can't read A Tale of Two Cities because it's violent. Children are far smarter than most people give them credit for.

It has nothing to do with how smart the kids are, it's all about maturity. Of course I know of many adults who aren't mature enough to be playing anything more then Barbie's Horse Adventures.

OT: Generally I suppose it should mostly be a guideline, but for retailers I think it should be Must Follow Rules. I say this because people in general, not just children, aren't very good at judging themselves, however if a parent or guardian feels that the child is mature enough to handle the games content then by all means, let them play it.