Why are all the good games rated "M"?

[Hippobatman]

Buy Viva Piñata. It's great, I promise.

I don't get minors complaining about not being allowed to play mature games. The ratings exist for a reason.

Some things aren't healthy for a minor to see, even if he or she consider themselves as mature enough.

Well that's a matter of opinion isn't it? Ratings exist because people are just too protective of their precious little kids. Take Australia for example... think of the children -_- Bullshit.

Ratings are hardly, as you call it; bullshit.

Yes, opinions vary, but they are meant to be guidelines. Even if one child can handle a game like, say, Gears of War, then you can bet your bottom there are ten others who can not.

My point regards the general population. Single individuals may be stronger mentally, but the larger part is weaker, thus easier to affect in a negative manner.

And your Australia argument is hazy. They are not handling the ratings issue reasonably, because they don't include every rating. If there was a mature rating, the games in mention would reach their appropriate audience and keep parents from buying them to their kids if they are against those types of games.

 

[SantoUno]

I have always thought about this as well. I guess it's simply because when game designers decide what to include in a game they don't even think about what rating it falls under, so when the final product is reviewed it usually contains most subjects that appeal more to mature crowds, so obviously the most popular games always gain an M because they contain more of what we want, while most E and T games usually contain subjects that we condemn either too "kiddy" or "light-weight".

 

[funguy2121]

It should be obvious to all that what you're oversimplifying as "blood" is gore, overt sexuality, possibly even rape and war crimes. Oh - and lots and lots of murder. I really have no problem with parents wanting to keep their 11- and 12-year-olds away from this stuff, but the 17+ rating seems a bit stiff. Again, I think that should be obvious to all, and I suspect it is - even to the opportunistic lawmakers who introduced the idea in the first place (*cough*Leiberman*cough*Tipper Gore).

However, there are plenty of games with a T or E rating that are fantastic, and if it truly is the flying limbs and polygonal titties that attract you to a game, I would (gently) call into question your own maturity.

 

[Fraught]

Because all games that don't use blood are kiddy, lets-ride-a-pony games.

Real games use (real) blood, that's why.

 

[Cowabungaa]

There are plenty of T and even lower rated games out there that are fantastic. Viva Pinata, Simcity 3000/4, The Legend of Zelda, plenty (not all) of Mario games, the Metroid Prime series and I could go on like that for a while.

Buy Viva Piñata. It's great, I promise.

I don't get minors complaining about not being allowed to play mature games. The ratings exist for a reason.

Some things aren't healthy for a minor to see, even if he or she consider themselves as mature enough.

Aren't healthy? Why would my 16 year old brother suddenly not be able to handle GTA4, or couldn't handle Battlefield 2 (which is rated for 16+ here) back when he was still 15? Do you know him? Who are you to judge, who is anyone who does not know him to judge? Saying that he can't just because he's 16 is a massive generalisation, an unfounded one. Every individual is just that, an individual, and should be treated as such.

Mind you, I'm all for age labels, but as an indication, not a strict enforcement. Ultimately it should be the parent who makes the final call. They're the one's who (or at least are supposed to) know the minor in question the best and can decide whether they are allowed to play the game or not.

I'm glad that in a lot of cases, this is indeed the case. Back when I was still a minor, I wanted to get FEAR. The shop manager then said he could sell me the game, but only with my parents permission. They were willing to give that permission, but then I saw the system specs required for the game and I quickly backed off anyway.

 

[Eggsnham]

It should be obvious to all that what you're oversimplifying as "blood" is gore, overt sexuality, possibly even rape and war crimes. Oh - and lots and lots of murder. I really have no problem with parents wanting to keep their 11- and 12-year-olds away from this stuff, but the 17+ rating seems a bit stiff. Again, I think that should be obvious to all, and I suspect it is - even to the opportunistic lawmakers who introduced the idea in the first place (*cough*Leiberman*cough*Tipper Gore).

However, there are plenty of games with a T or E rating that are fantastic, and if it truly is the flying limbs and polygonal titties that attract you to a game, I would (gently) call into question your own maturity.

No, I don't love gore and I don't find polygonal titties attractive, but games like say, BF:BC2 which looks like a potential CoD killer (t'will be awesome, methinks), the only reason (that I know of) that it's rated "M" is because of blood. I think that's going to upset a lot of fans of the original who are restricted by parents and people fearing psychopathic children. Like I said, most games worth playing are rated "M".

 

[Korten12]

Honestly, there are some games that are M. Such as GTA. There are some games out there rated M that should be T. Like Oblivion. I played it. Never saw a reason for it to be re-rated as M (besides some certain mods, but those shouldn't chagne the actual game's rating).

A good example I've seen is MW2 compared to CoD4. MW2's campaign is incredibly dramatic. It's intensity and action is a lot more than CoD4's. CoD4 should be T. MW2 is rated as it should be.

No Cod4's is rightyfully M. the second level where your the president and you see all the soldiers putting people against the wall and shooting them. Soldiers gunning down running civilans. and other stuff.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

The rating of games always seemed to suit me and my childhood, because I never wanted to play any game with gore or anything that would scare the living daylights out of me. Most of it probably has to do with the fact that I grew up with Nintendo most of my life. My older brother would play Quake all the time, but I never wanted to watch it. I hated it. Call me a pussy, but there was never a moment I wasn't able to play a game I wanted to play.

So, I stuck to my games, games for my own age group, and as I progressively got older, my interests changed. I started to appreciate the more adult aspects in most games. They only game I played outside of my age group was Halo, and that was at my friends house. Dunno why, but everything just worked out fine for me. Thank you, Nintendo, for providing enough fun and good times during my childhood to distract me from the violence and gore that was just in the next room.

 

[TelHybrid]

The M and T ratings confuse me... what ages do they start from?

I'm used to numerical ratings... 12, 15 and 18. :S

 

[Hippobatman]

SNIP

Ratings are hardly, as you call it; bullshit.

Yes, opinions vary, but [ratings] are meant to be guidelines. Even if one child can handle a game like, say, Gears of War, then you can bet your bottom there are ten others who can not.

My point regards the general population. Single individuals may be stronger mentally, but the larger part is weaker, thus easier to affect in a negative manner.

And your Australia argument is hazy. They are not handling the ratings issue reasonably, because they don't include every rating. If there was a mature rating, the games in mention would reach their appropriate audience and keep parents from buying them to their kids if they are against those types of games.

Read down the page before you post, would you kindly.

And I don't judge.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

They are not.

If you honestly cant enjoy anything besides M-rated shooters and third person action games then you just have a very simple taste in games. Some of my favorite games aren't rated M or even T for that matter, and this is coming from a die hard shooter fan.

Truer words have never been spoken.

Honestly, there are some games that are M. Such as GTA. There are some games out there rated M that should be T. Like Oblivion. I played it. Never saw a reason for it to be re-rated as M (besides some certain mods, but those shouldn't chagne the actual game's rating).

A good example I've seen is MW2 compared to CoD4. MW2's campaign is incredibly dramatic. It's intensity and action is a lot more than CoD4's. CoD4 should be T. MW2 is rated as it should be.

Wronger words have never been spoken.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Because all games that don't use blood are kiddy, lets-ride-a-pony games.

Real games use (real) blood, that's why.

Dude, totally. I mean, people keep telling me what a great game Tetris is, so I tried it out. The blocks totally did NOT explode with blood and organs flying around when I cleared them! It sucks!

[small]...I may have burst my sarcasm gland here. Maybe I should see a doctor.[/small]

 

[Eggsnham]

There was a post a couple days ago about some kid getting in the age old ratings argument with his mom that got me wondering. Why are all the games worth playing rated "M"?

They are not.

If you (as well as everybody else who is reading this) honestly cant enjoy anything besides M-rated shooters and third person action games then you just have a very simple taste in games. Some of my favorite games aren't rated M or even T for that matter.

Well, I am easily amused. Don't get me wrong, I like a good RTS and I'm a huge fan of the Ratchet and Clank series, but games like CoD that (to me anyways) are amazing fun to play and are rated "M". When I got MW2, I was told by my mom that I couldn't play it in front of my 10 year old brother. Not that I would have, but this was a major turn off to me, because it's almost like our rating system is set up so that you can't enjoy a good portion of the good games until you're a certain age, on purpose. Although I do hate squeakers when you're trying to something ingame... But I stand by my point.

 

[Fraught]

Because all games that don't use blood are kiddy, lets-ride-a-pony games.

Real games use (real) blood, that's why.

Dude, totally. I mean, people keep telling me what a great game Tetris is, so I tried it out. The blocks totally did NOT explode with blood and organs flying around when I cleared them! It sucks!

[small]...I may have burst my sarcasm gland here. Maybe I should see a doctor.[/small]

Yeah, puzzle games too.

My post was mildly sarcastic, but I did forget them.

 

[funguy2121]

It should be obvious to all that what you're oversimplifying as "blood" is gore, overt sexuality, possibly even rape and war crimes. Oh - and lots and lots of murder. I really have no problem with parents wanting to keep their 11- and 12-year-olds away from this stuff, but the 17+ rating seems a bit stiff. Again, I think that should be obvious to all, and I suspect it is - even to the opportunistic lawmakers who introduced the idea in the first place (*cough*Leiberman*cough*Tipper Gore).

However, there are plenty of games with a T or E rating that are fantastic, and if it truly is the flying limbs and polygonal titties that attract you to a game, I would (gently) call into question your own maturity.

No, I don't love gore and I don't find polygonal titties attractive, but games like say, BF:BC2 which looks like a potential CoD killer (t'will be awesome, methinks), the only reason (that I know of) that it's rated "M" is because of blood. I think that's going to upset a lot of fans of the original who are restricted by parents and people fearing psychopathic children. Like I said, most games worth playing are rated "M".

I suppose by CoD you mean Call of Duty. So what the fuck is BCTS:#*&2? "BattleFront:Because I Can 2?" I'm confused. If the game to which you're referring is anything like Call of Duty, then it must contain some of the following: burning people alive, terrorism, nuclear explosions, mines and explosives that blow people apart, and other realistic war situations. "Blood," once again, does not begin to cover it.

I mean, really, if your parents have any say in what you're playing/watching/listening to (aside from pornography), either they're VERY christian or simply out of the norm, or you're 12 or 13 in which case, again, I think it is within their moral (as well as legal) right. If you're 15 or 16, I can't see a lot of parental interference here, unless they've recently attended some seminar for crazy religious zealots. I mean, when I was in the single digits my parents went to meetings wherein they "learned" that everything from He-Man to Cabbage Patch kids were satanic (that's satanic in the literal way, btw, not simply an expression of it being bad or a distraction). By the time I was a teen, my Mom could care less what games I played and what movies I watched as long as I wasn't downloading porn via AOL on our Windows 95-enabled P 60. And you, sonny, are too young to know what that is (consider yourself lucky). Now if you'll excuse me, the missus and I have some whittlin' to do.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Buy Viva Piñata. It's great, I promise.

I don't get minors complaining about not being allowed to play mature games. The ratings exist for a reason.

Some things aren't healthy for a minor to see, even if he or she consider themselves as mature enough.

Well that's a matter of opinion isn't it? Ratings exist because people are just too protective of their precious little kids. Take Australia for example... think of the children -_- Bullshit.

Ratings are hardly, as you call it; bullshit.

Yes, opinions vary, but they are meant to be guidelines. Even if one child can handle a game like, say, Gears of War, then you can bet your bottom there are ten others who can not.

My point regards the general population. Single individuals may be stronger mentally, but the larger part is weaker, thus easier to affect in a negative manner.

And your Australia argument is hazy. They are not handling the ratings issue reasonably, because they don't include every rating. If there was a mature rating, the games in mention would reach their appropriate audience and keep parents from buying them to their kids if they are against those types of games.

I'm sorry but I stand by my point. It should be up to the parents to decide. And yeah guidelines they may be, but I still think it's a load of crap. Especially when we live in such a world that we live in, where people are going crazy over a lot of silly things. Games being one of them.

 

[manythings]

Because all games that don't use blood are kiddy, lets-ride-a-pony games.

Real games use (real) blood, that's why.

Dude, totally. I mean, people keep telling me what a great game Tetris is, so I tried it out. The blocks totally did NOT explode with blood and organs flying around when I cleared them! It sucks!

[small]...I may have burst my sarcasm gland here. Maybe I should see a doctor.[/small]

Yeah, puzzle games too.

My post was mildly sarcastic, but I did forget them.

"Beyond Good and Evil" and "Psychonauts". It doesn't have to be rated mature to be good it has to be good to BE GOOD. Any other rules you attach are about as accurate as "Praying to Zeus protects you from lightning."

 

[koriantor]

Honestly, there are some games that are M. Such as GTA. There are some games out there rated M that should be T. Like Oblivion. I played it. Never saw a reason for it to be re-rated as M (besides some certain mods, but those shouldn't chagne the actual game's rating).

A good example I've seen is MW2 compared to CoD4. MW2's campaign is incredibly dramatic. It's intensity and action is a lot more than CoD4's. CoD4 should be T. MW2 is rated as it should be.

No Cod4's is rightyfully M. the second level where your the president and you see all the soldiers putting people against the wall and shooting them. Soldiers gunning down running civilans. and other stuff.

That's not bad at all. Especially when compared to MW2. I've seen worse T games than that.

 

[Trotgar]

Well, not all the good games, but most of the games I really like/am really interested in, like Mass Effects and Dragon Age and some others I'm not that interested in, but quite a bit, still.