ESRB

Mai Valentine

Mai Valentine

Moderator
Ok, so it's past my turn but I figured since no one else posted one yet, why not? :p For next week I pick....trkorecky.

Anyway, on to the topic: The ESRB ratings system.

I finally picked up Alien Hominid and I started playing it. I had some friends over, and the moment I started playing, we were surprised by how bloody it was. Like the alien would jump on people and bite their heads off, causing blood to gush from the neck. Or the alien would use a knife and chop the fbi agents in half, causing their torsos and leg stumps to gush blood. My friends asked what the rating was, and I checked and it's only rated T. Granted, the content descriptors did mention that it was rated T for Blood & Gore and Cartoon Violence. But we all agreed that it really should have been rated M. I said that it managed to get away with a T because it's cel-shaded and thus looks like a cartoon. If it wasn't cel-shaded, it probably would have got an M rating.

Basically, do you agree with the ratings that the ESRB gives games? If so, why? If you've ever disagreed with a rating they gave a game, why?
 
Re: Weekly Topic: ESRB ratings system

I haven't really had a problem with any of them, but don't really notice them either.  I pick games based upon whether I like them rather than the rating they got by ESRB.

EDIT: Thought of a game that I personally think was rated incorrectly. Manhunt (I despise this game more than anyone could ever imagine) should be rated AO. This game is so violent and graphic that people under the age of 18 should not be able to play it (in truth, I don't think the game should ever have been sold or even created for that matter). Thrill Kill, a PS1 game that was never sold in stores (unless it's a modified copy) is less graphic than Manhunt.
 
Re: Weekly Topic: ESRB ratings system

Myself personaly..I never pay any attention to the ratings. But I can remember one instance where they really baffled me. Back when Quake 3 Arena came out on DC it was rated M, at the exact same time one of those Tom Clancy games..maybe Rainbow-whatever..I forget exact name...anyways it was rated T. Ok..now this makes no sense at all to me...one game has unrealistic futuristic weapons and killing demons and cyborgs...its rated M....the other has realistic weapons, killing humans..and its rated T...WTF.

I can remember this scenario well because at the time my friends and i made many jokes about it..like how its obviosly a worse influence to kill demons than it is to kill people...at least thats what you would assume from these ratings.

I think the whole ratings system is pretty flawed really...and never pay much attention to it at all...if I had kids maybe I would..but I'm an adult so it doesn't matter to me. Another great example of how idiotic the system is would be Night Trap..which if I'm not mistaken was the first M rated game ever...all because a girl in it wore a nightgown, and was attacked while wearing said nightgown, by really cheesy vampires in black ninja suits no less...
 
Re: Weekly Topic: ESRB ratings system

Rainbow Six has no blood, while Quake does (and gore, I believe). That's probably the only reason that it was rated M over Rainbow Six.
 
Re: Weekly Topic: ESRB ratings system

trkorecky said:
Rainbow Six has no blood, while Quake does (and gore, I believe). That's probably the only reason that it was rated M over Rainbow Six.
Click to expand...

So the moral of the story is...if it bleeds its mature? I think thats ignorant...shooting a human being in the head with a high powered rifle is so much more graphic to me than shooting a demon with a plasma gun.
 
Re: Weekly Topic: ESRB ratings system

Dr_Ackula said:
So the moral of the story is...if it bleeds its mature? I think thats ignorant...shooting a human being in the head with a high powered rifle is so much more graphic to me than shooting a demon with a plasma gun.
Click to expand...
Hey, the people that rate the games are probably rediculously old and never really play most of the game. Most are probably under pressure from "soccer moms" as well.
 
Re: Weekly Topic: ESRB ratings system

I don't really see the point of them. Whoever is buying the game definitely has an idea of what the game is like and don't need some rating to tell them whether they're mature enough for it. Generally the description and pictures on the back give you a good enough idea of what its all about, if the cover art doesn't. It just seems kind of pointless to me, as there are obvious instances where the rating is purely subjective to the person who gave it.
 
Re: Weekly Topic: ESRB ratings system

The ratings just seem so arbitrary. Like someone mentioned, if a game has guns and violence, but no blood, it can get away with a T rating. But then you see some games, like Alien Hominid, with gushing blood and lots of violence, that get away with a T rating because of the cartoon style.
 
Re: Weekly Topic: ESRB ratings system

We have a different rating system in the UK, so I can't really comment on much.

But I will say that I agree with what Stealth said. You can get a pretty good idea of a game's content by looking at the front and back of a game cover and reading the details. The only game where I actually thought "this game is far too graphic for the rating it got" was Manhunt.

I had a feeling that Alien Hominid would have some gore, as it's from the Newgrounds team. I don't think it should be rated any higher than a T rating, though, because there's no way I would find cel-shaded blood offensive, it's just too slapstick. But that's just my personal opinion.
 
Odd, I haven't seen a topic posted in this site once about the ESRB rating system. I'll try my best to give my input on the matter, so here goes: (Keep in mind that I understand there must be guidelines...I'm only confused)

Ever since the inception of the ESRB in 1994, there has been nothing but controversy. In this topic, I'm taking each rating apart piece by piece to let you know how I think it should go.

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

In the site, they have categories listed as follows:

EC - Early Childhood (ages 3+)
E - Everyone (ages 6+)
E10+ - Everyone 10 and older (ages 10+)
T - Teen (ages 13+)
M - Mature (ages 17+)
AO - Adults Only (ages 18+)

If I had it my way, it would be as follows:

E - Everyone (no age limit)
T - Teen (13+)
M - Mature (16+)
AO - Adults Only (18+)

I'd like to give you my reasoning, but I think it would better be explained in terms of breaking down the ESRB ratings system.


EARLY CHILDHOOD
Titles rated EC (Early Childhood) have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.
Click to expand...

Alright, I'm guessing that by stating there is no material parents would find inappropriate, you mean games teaching about teaching in some way, shape, or form. I don't have a problem with that. Moving on.


EVERYONE
Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.
Click to expand...

Here's where the ESRB system starts to mess up. Apparently these games aren't for everyone. These games are for kids 6 and older. How does that make sense. Would any parent who doesn't want their kid to develop so called aggressive behavior, want their kids who are a minimum of 6 years old by the way, to learn any violence, or bad language? Now granted violence could be a bunny jumping on an alligator, causing him to pop and that's the end of the boss fight, but still. You can't show little kids violence, no matter how mild. And the language. I'm taking it language means words like "crap" and such. Still, it's not showing your kid how to grow up as a model citizen. Instead, it's showing them how to talk trashy at a young age.


EVERYONE 10+
Titles rated E10+ (Everyone 10 and older) have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.
Click to expand...

You can't have EVERYONE and 10+ in the same rating. It should be A10+, anyone 10 and older or something to that effect. Once again, you're bringing in mild violence, mild language and minimal suggestive themes. I don't have a problem with mild violence, or language in this category. What I do have a problem with is minimal suggestive themes. This is the reason, no matter how minimal, we have 10 year olds who walk around in tube tops and booty shorts. These girls dress older, because they see stuff portrayed as ok in the general's eye, especially in games with this ESRB rating.


TEEN
Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.
Click to expand...


I don't have a problem with this at all. The rating seems fair, and by the age of 13, most kids should be used to violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, blood, and all that stuff from tv and movies, rather than games.


MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
Click to expand...

This is terrible. Supposedly, ESRB knows something about being 17 years old that we don't. Apparently, 17 years old is the year where the psychological barrier is broken, and they can play games that are all but interactive pornos. Honestly, this category should be for ages 16 and up. If you can trust a 16 year old with a 2,000 lb vehicle, you can trust him to play a video game. I can understand that they're trying to base this rating on the popular 'R' rating that goes along with movies, but I don't agree with that either.

ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.
Click to expand...

I don't have too much of a problem with this. Sure the violence being viewed by only 18 and older is debatable, but the nudity is not. Magazines depicting tons of nudity and sexual content are only distributed to people 18 and older, as are movies with the same stuff. You can't really argue the point.
 
Once again, kill the letters, only keep the reasons. Parents need to judge for themselves.
 
I agree with the Mature assessment completely. I am 16, and if I can drive a car to the game store I am responsible enough to see the Master Chief kill an alien.
 
SpartanEvolved said:
I agree with the Mature assessment completely. I am 16, and if I can drive a car to the game store I am responsible enough to see the Master Chief kill an alien.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly.
 
You can't have EVERYONE and 10+ in the same rating. It should be A10+, anyone 10 and older or something to that effect. Once again, you're bringing in mild violence, mild language and minimal suggestive themes. I don't have a problem with mild violence, or language in this category. What I do have a problem with is minimal suggestive themes. This is the reason, no matter how minimal, we have 10 year olds who walk around in tube tops and booty shorts. These girls dress older, because they see stuff portrayed as ok in the general's eye, especially in games with this ESRB rating.
Click to expand...

did you ever read the news article about why ESRB made this rating?

The title of it was, "For Everyone, except for some of you".

E10+ was made for games like SSBM and the like. Games that may be too much for someone who's 6 or 7, but not crazy enough towarrant a 13+ rating.

Generally aspeaking though, their rating system is based around the same movie system here, where PG-13 = T and R = M.

AO18+ is generally reserved for games that are all about full-frontal nudity and sex. Few games earn the violence and gore required by it (I've only heard of one game that earned it, but can't remember the name). Developers try to avoid this rating as much as much as possible, because then the only way to get the game is through the internet. Wal-Mart and other places won't carry it.

EC: Can't argue it. Pretty much all games that ar EC are educational in some form.

E: If you harken back to the SNES days, this rating was called KA for "Kids to Adults". I'm guessing game companies asked them to change it so it didn't sound like adults weren't meant to play them or something.

T: Obviously reserved for most fighting games minus Mortal Kombat. Generally ones that aren't bloody, but are realistic in terms of looks (like the Soul Caliber series).

M: I agree that this should be changed to 16 or 15. The age is way to close to that of the AO rating.
 
I don't know, if E10+ was 'made for SSBM', how come they didn't use it?
 
Whoever rated SSBM "T" should be forced to gurgle liquid nitrogen. Honestly, that is dumbest rating I've ever seen.
 
fhqwhgads said:
I don't know, if E10+ was 'made for SSBM', how come they didn't use it?
Click to expand...

Because SSBM came out before the rating changed?  You probably have a version from beforehand.  I'm pretty sure the SSBM's that are sitting at my neabry Wal-Mart shelves are currently rated E10+

Whoever rated SSBM "T" should be forced to gurgle liquid nitrogen. Honestly, that is dumbest rating I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

Hence why E10+ was made.  SSBM was simply to "hard" for a 6 year old, but since the next rating level was T, that's what they had to use, even though there's much "harder" games that are rated T out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top