"Mature" games

[uchytjes]

Now, I know that many of you were kids at one point or another in your lives. Whether it was years ago or just recently doesn't matter. I also know that some of you may have come into a predicament when your parents discovered the age rating systems and because of that may have been unable to play that hot-new-all-the-rage-game-that-all-your-friends-play.

Looking back a little now, I have come to realize something. Almost all "good" games that are coming out now are mostly rated M for mature. While most of these are big triple A titles, what they seem to do (or at least seem to do) is market their games to people who are younger than the age limit. This causes kids to either A: get their parents to buy them or B: go to a friend's house to play them.

You all probably realize this, of course.

But my question for you, my fellow escapists, is this: "do you think that games would benefit from lowering ESRB ratings on games such as COD and the like?" or, alternatively: "Has ESRB ratings become too lax since when you were a child or have they gotten stronger?"

 

[The Madman]

Honestly I'm inclined to say it's entirely up to the parents. ESRB is really little more than a guideline rather than any concrete law, and frankly that's how it should be.

Which doesn't mean I endorse children playing M rated games, especially todays M rated games. When I was a kid Duke Nukem 3D and Mortal Kombat were among the worst contenders: highly pixelated blood and nipples, maybe the occasional B movie style one-liner. Today by contrast you've got people being cut in half in vivid grotesque detail, head exploding into gorey violent chunks, swearing, cursing, force feedback controls and the most immersive graphical and sound experience possible.

It's kinda terrifying, I don't blame some people not familiar with gaming for feeling nervous around these things.

Still ultimately responsibility lies with the parents to properly research and educate themselves about a game then to judge for themselves whether they think it's appropriate for their children. The biggest problem with the rating system isn't that violent and disgusting games exist or even how they're rated, it's that so many parent don't bother to learn about them and then expose their children to this stuff without thought or guidance.

If anything I want there to be more detailed game ratings, ratings that explain to the parent in question just what's objectionable within that game. Then what's even more important I was groups such as the ESRB to properly advertise themselves and to make it known to the average consumer that they even exist and how the ratings work.

 

[ChupathingyX]

I wouldn't know, my country is dominated under the iron fist of the OFLC.

I just wish ratings would stop treating more older gamers like little kids, or even just stop thinking that video games are only for little children.

It's fair enough to use ratings as a guide for people, but don't take something completely away from a large group of people to "save" another group.

 

[TehCookie]

I think it's the push for realism in games that bumps up the rating. Back when we were little most games were cartoony and cartoon violence isn't as bad as real violence. Excuse me if I'm wrong but isn't blood an instant M? While FF7 may have Sephiroth impale Aerith with a sword, it is bloodless and doesn't have any gore. Now if you have a game where you slash people with a sword and they don't bleed gamers find it odd and unrealistic, back then we didn't have the technology to do that.

Edit: Well thinking back we did, but it wasn't commonplace. Most games that did have it were LOLGORE.

Also I wouldn't want my hypothetical kids playing todays violent games because they are much more realistic. If you're shooting pixel characters that explode into red blocks isn't nearly as bad as having a human explode into moist quivering fleshy bits.

 

[dessertmonkeyjk]

Yeah, I don't think lowering the rating is a good idea. The developers seem to be pursuing the 90 gamers as well as trying to up one another at a technological level. Not that pushing the envelope is bad but they're leaving all the kids in the dust as well and forget they're even there.

I think in the past some games got a T rating for not having alot of blood among other things. Usually when heads start rolling and spewing or sexual content to the max is when M is slapped on the box.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

No, not really. It's not very difficult to get a hold of an M-rated game as it is. Uninformed or apathetic parents, friends, lax video game store rules, online purchasing (not a single online retailer I've bought games from seems to have any sort of age-check), etc etc.

Frankly, I don't care, I'm just saying it's not hard to get them right now and making it even easier won't really matter.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

There's a trope called "Rated M for Money" for a reason. The gaming industry is so ashamed of itself that they feel that to be taken seriously, a game needs to have a mature label on it. Look at Halo. It has blood and violence that maybe pushes the 14A rating in Canada, yet it is treated as if its content is the same as The Witcher 2.

 

[Gamerluls]

Honestly I'm inclined to say it's entirely up to the parents. ESRB is really little more than a guideline rather than any concrete law, and frankly that's how it should be.

Which doesn't mean I endorse children playing M rated games, especially todays M rated games. When I was a kid Duke Nukem 3D and Mortal Kombat were among the worst contenders: highly pixelated blood and nipples, maybe the occasional B movie style one-liner. Today by contrast you've got people being cut in half in vivid grotesque detail, head exploding into gorey violent chunks, swearing, cursing, force feedback controls and the most immersive graphical and sound experience possible.

It's kinda terrifying, I don't blame some people not familiar with gaming for feeling nervous around these things.

Still ultimately responsibility lies with the parents to properly research and educate themselves about a game then to judge for themselves whether they think it's appropriate for their children. The biggest problem with the rating system isn't that violent and disgusting games exist or even how they're rated, it's that so many parent don't bother to learn about them and then expose their children to this stuff without thought or guidance.

If anything I want there to be more detailed game ratings, ratings that explain to the parent in question just what's objectionable within that game. Then what's even more important I was groups such as the ESRB to properly advertise themselves and to make it known to the average consumer that they even exist and how the ratings work.

Frankly, I agree. It is up to parents to try to find out why games have the rating that they do. Also, to know what their children can handle, and to teach them that while its fine to do these things in games, it isn't okay in the real world. I know that there were some games like L4D2 and Amnesia, where the gore was all over, but it kind of added to it, and it wasn't shocking. But when I played Clock Tower 3, it freaked me out. A huge drooling man with a hammer who talks like he is a registered rapist and beat a little child to death with said hammer. It should give warning about not just blood and gore, but plain disturbing.

 

[lacktheknack]

Personally, I think we should support "Content Reviews For Parents" instead of <link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.251518-Timothy-Plan-Updates-Do-Not-Buy-List-of-Videogames-for-the-Holiday-Season>trying to set them on fire.

The ESRB is fine as is, it's more of a question of "Do Parents Know What's In This Game" rather than whether or not I'm arbitrarily old enough to purchase and play the game sans-guidance.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

I personally don't give a damn what the ESRB does, and find it generally ineffectual in its given role. I won't say its role is entirely unnecessary; just that it's poor at it. I'd prefer parents bother to do their own research, rather than this "it's always someone else's fault/responsibility" mentality we as a society have developed.

With that said, I agree that most M rated games are in fact marketed toward younger people, and it may very well be that they're the largest portion of the players, if not at least a significant portion.

Marketing is often all about presenting things in a way that gets away with something it shouldn't while stating the opposite, though. So is politics, incidentally.

 

[Realitycrash]

The ESRB is a guide-line, and it should stay that way. In my country, the maximum age-limit that can be set is 15. Then again, if you, as a parent, don't want them playing Postal even if they are 15, youa re free to take it away from them, since they aren't, you know, EIGHTEEN and are thus subject to your guidance.
Then again, if you have done a good job as a parent you shouldn't HAVE to take Postal away from them at the age of fifteen, because they would understand that it is just a game.¨'

But not all parents are good parents.

 

[Lawnmooer]

The ratings on games should be there for the parents in my opinion, so if they want to buy a game for their kid (Or if the kid is interested in a game) they can have a look at what the content may be (Since the parents that would need to look at the rating won't know much about the games content)

I think that it should be perfectly possible for a kid to go into a game store and buy 15's and 18's (Because violence seems to be pushing age ratings higher as time goes on... Obviously porn games probably shouldn't be sold to them though) though this thought process may be down to the last 2 times I bought games (That wasn't through steam) the first was when I was 14-15 (I can't remember which) and I tried to buy L4D2 and was declined because it was an 18 and I didn't have ID, the second time was a couple of weeks ago when I bought Dark Souls which is an 18, at the same time I also got myself a Gamestation card and gave my real date of birth (Which revealed that I was 17)

To be honest it should be up to the individual what games they feel that they can take, with ratings there just to give a nice guideline to concerned parents and non-gamers that are buying gifts. I know that I started playing GTA's before I was 10 and went into a store and bought an 18 rated game when I was 12 (There was also a sign about not selling games to underage customers right next to the till...) and my nephew started playing 18's before the age of 6 and neither of us have been affected (Except we have far fewer games that are 3+ or 12's in our gaming collections)

 

[Vampire cat]

It's kinda up to the parents... When I was a kid my dad wouldn't let me have any of the awesome games, so I'd be watching them being played or getting to try some myself at friends houses or at my cousins home cause he had ALL the neat stuff X3.

My first "violent" game was Battlefield 1942 =3. That's likely why I feel so strongly about the series X3.

 

[Lunar Templar]

point me to a 'Mature' game and I'll be able to answer you better, since what counts as 'Mature' is really pretty juvenile a lot of the time

 

[Rombor]

Parents and society should raise their children to understand that what they see is fiction and not reality. The children should get a good moral compass, and understand that killing people is unacceptable, and never have the desire to kill anyone. Consequently ratings are entirely useless.

Concerning whether children will be negatively emotionally affected by violence, sex, etc, that is up to the parents to decide. Ratings do little good on this part. I doubt running over people in GTA would leave anyone emotionally affected, because people would understand that it is nothing they would do in reality, and the graphics are quite unrealistic. Still GTA gets a high rating. I've been playing GTA since as soon as I found out about it, and that was way before I turned 18. I have not been affected negatively; I have never even shoplifted, and I feel terrible when reading about real-life murders, etc. I have not been affected negatively. Consequently ratings are inaccurate and unnecessary. At least in my case.

 

[Night Zalkova]

Well if parents would stop looking at video games as digital babysitters and get any game "little Jimmy" wants we wouldn't have to worry that much about ESRB. Its seems alot agree that it is ultimately the parents job to know what they are getting. I was a bit taken back hearing a kid wanting Assassin's Creed. Mind you the kid was probably about 10. When I was that age I was too busy collecting rings as Sonic to have any want to play something like that. And since a good portion of the gaming market are younger then they may want to make games suitable for their age so parents don't have to compromise with M rated games.

 

[ResonanceGames]

But my question for you, my fellow escapists, is this: "do you think that games would benefit from lowering ESRB ratings on games such as COD and the like?" or, alternatively: "Has ESRB ratings become too lax since when you were a child or have they gotten stronger?"

The ESRB is just way different than it used to be. When I was a teenager, there was just one E rating and the T-Rating was completely nonsensical. You had T rated games like Trespasser with fountains of blood, then games like NOLF that got slapped with an M for who-knows-what (at least the GOTY edition).


Actually, now that I think about it, the Halo games are all rated M, but the Batman Arkham games are both T, so I guess it's still completely nonsensical.

At any rate, I think it's pretty stupid to consider an all-encompassing rating when deciding what's appropriate for a kid. A lot of it depends on the kid