×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The ESRB Gets An 'F'

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the bad-day-for-games dept.

Games 641

GamePolitics reports on a failing grade given to the ESRB by the National Institute on Media and the Family. The report card did not look good for the ratings board, which almost immediately fired back at the organization. From that article: "The reality is that publishers understand that retailers largely choose not to stock AO-rated games, and so in the interests of producing marketable games, publishers will oftentimes revise and resubmit a game that was initially assigned an AO by raters in an effort to produce an M-rated game. When this happens, the process starts again from the beginning, and each new version of a game is reviewed independently. The call to issue more AO ratings has little to do with rating accuracy, and more to do with NIMF's real agenda, which is to destroy the commercial viability of games it deems objectionable. Unlike NIMF, ESRB's job is to be a neutral rater, not a censor."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

641 comments

Sheesh! (4, Funny)

winkydink (650484) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149935)

NIMF: You suck!
ESRB: You suck more!
NIMF: Your mother wears army boots!
ESRB: Your sister swims after troop ships!

Does any adult really give a flying fig? Oh wait, the Slashdot demographic is... never mind.

Re:Sheesh! (1)

AsiNisiMasa (910721) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150003)

I would guess that every adult gamer who cares about deciding what games they can or can not play gives a "flying fig."

It would seem at first as if forcing the ESRB to rate more things as AO would only affect minors, the fact of the matter is made quite clear even in the article summary. Developers don't want to make AO games, so tightenning the standards means more censored games for people of all ages.

Re:Sheesh! (2, Insightful)

Red_Foreman (877991) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150090)

No, it's about a bunch of busybody dumbasses getting upset that their little Johnny might be getting a glimpse of polygons (still wearing clothes) bumping and grinding.

I laugh at these people. If they only knew what kind of porn their kids were looking at when their not around.

Bunch of dumbasses.

Speaking of which:

so tightenning the standards means more censored games for people of all ages.

It's only censorship when the government does it. When the market does it, it's called "developing a salable product."

Three ways that the government does it (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150171)

It's only censorship when the government does it.

When

  1. the municipal government's zoning board denies the right to use land for a video game store that sells AO games,
  2. the government denies the right to advertise that a publisher publishes or that a store sells AO games (as happens widely in Europe), or
  3. the government's patent office denies the right to make a console specifically for AO games,
then "the government does it". Now what point are you going to make in order to avoid the term "censorship"?

Re:Sheesh! (0, Flamebait)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150250)

This really is bullshit. Did they look at any games at all? I mean, really. I've seen a FEW games this years that should have been rated higher, but not that many. But if the movie industry does the same thing, they get excused. I call bullshit.

Anyway. They probably only looked at the GTA scandal, and based their entire 'grade' off of ONE news item. Didn't bother to look at the ratings of other games.

Re:Sheesh! (5, Insightful)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150127)

publishers will oftentimes revise and resubmit a game that was initially assigned an AO by raters in an effort to produce an M-rated game.

How is this any different from directors re-editing violent or sexually-explicit movies to avoid the NC-17 rating?

"AO" is understood to mean "pr0n" and therefore most retail outlets will refuse to carry any game with an AO stamped on it.

You can't reach the adult market, let alone the all-important teen market, if your games are "behind the beaded curain" along with the hentai cartoons and Penhouse videos. In the eyes of most consumers, including those who don't mind the sex and/or violence, it's as if the game doesn't even exist unless you can find it at Best Buy and Wal-Mart.

So of course a game which is fated to wear the Scarlet AO is going to be re-edited and re-submitted in hopes of being accepted as an "M" game. Designers would otherwise stand to lose millions of dollars over this.

Re:Sheesh! (5, Insightful)

AsiNisiMasa (910721) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150205)

I absolutely agree with that, my point is that the standards for AO now are fine. A game with porn in it should be rated AO because that's what it is. My concern is over the fact that they want some games that are currently being rated M as AO. I'm not a GTA fan, but I'm sure a lot of adults would be pissed if the next installment was watered down ("sweat" replacing blood a la Mortal Kombat, for example) because the standards became more strict.

Re:Sheesh! (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150126)

Does any adult really give a flying fig? Oh wait, the Slashdot demographic is... never mind.

Dunno about adults, but apparently you cared enough to read the summary (and possibly the articles too), and comment on it, taking a cheap potshot at Slashdot readers while you did.

Little Pot, meet Kid Kettle :).

Zonk? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14149960)

Zonk, this is at least a semi-dupe of an article you posted yesterday!

I "hate" Christians... (5, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149961)

...who spend their time on this garbage. I am a Christian myself. I know the NIMF isn't an openly religiously motivated group, but I see how churches support them.

[open rant]
These ratings are no replacement for parenting. Instead of wasting time complaining, work a few more hours a week and donate the money to your church marketing fund.

Stop trying to make non-Christians become like you by using the force of government or nanny groups. Instead, work within your group of Christians to help keep those kids moral and loved and ethical. Christian kids are the worst because their parents are blind to reality.

I hate my label as I'd never tell a non-Christian to stop swearing or stop drinking or stop screwing around or stop watching porn. I'd never use government or a nanny group to further a Christian agenda.

My job as the Bible mandates is to enforce responsibility in my brothers and sisters in Christ, and be a model for non-believers. I can not control a non-believer and using Caesar to do so is wrong.

Your job as a parent is to be involved 100% in your child's life. If you want a good Christian child, be a good Christian parent. Try to live sin free, and stop forcing your child to be perfect if you are not perfect yourself.

Re:I "hate" Christians... (4, Informative)

LordKazan (558383) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150021)

Why can't there be more Christians like you?

me=athiest, and tired of having my rights trampled

There are many Christians like us. (5, Insightful)

Dareth (47614) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150124)

We are just not as vocal as the Ralph Reed variety.

I am a Christian. I believe in God. I also read fantasy novels, play D&D, and even play some violent video games. I am also an adult.

I do not press my views on other people, yet I do not hide what I believe when asked.

I can't scare people into heaven, but I can tell them that I have a close relationship with God. Nor do I claim to know everything, or have a perfect understanding of God and religion.

My beliefs are personal, between myself and God. I will let other people develop (or not) the same relationship. I just know it works for me.

Re:There are many Christians like us. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150173)

I also read fantasy novels, play D&D, and even play some violent video games. I am also an adult.


Clippy tells me there is a "sentence agreement problem" whatever that means...

Re:I "hate" Christians... (-1, Troll)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150220)

You'd likely change your mind if you knew all my religious beliefs:

1. Serve God first (not the flag, not your boss, not the IRS, not your family)

2. Don't have anger towards God. If life is bad, you didn't prepare properly.

3. Don't worship logos, fads or ipods err idols.

4. Set aside one day a week to do God's work.

5. Respect your parents

6. Never kill -- no war is just

7. Don't cheat on your spouse

8. Don't steal - Taxation is theft, currency inflation is theft

9. Be honest with all your words and actions

10. Don't be jealous or control what isn't yours - Zoning laws are wrong, business regulations are wrong, slavery is wrong (the draft)

God commands this of me. Nowhere does he say "force others to do these things"

Re:I "hate" Christians... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150078)

You know what I hate? All the fucking acronyms. The ratings, who made them, who rates those, and then a story about it, ugh!

NIMF, ESRB, F, AO, M, FUCK.

As a Christian myself... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150092)

...I'd rather promote my beliefs by my actions instead of telling other people how to live their lives. The entire meaning of religion goes straight over the head of these people and they don't even see it. Sad.

Re:I "hate" Christians... (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150106)

Where is the moderation for "Holy Shit! I'm converted!"

I agree with the poster above me. The Christian religion needs more Christians like you.

Re:I "hate" Christians... (0, Redundant)

rizzo420 (136707) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150125)

you are absolutely correct. why do parents want to leave the parenting up to large organizations? if you really care about your children, you'd try the game yourself first and then decide if they should be able to play it. just like with movies, some movies rated R aren't as bad as you would think. watch it with your child or go see it yourself first.

i also don't see why kids can't be carded when they rent or buy video games (although if you're too young for a license you have no way of being carded).

Re:I "hate" Christians... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150132)

You're an idiot.

Re:I "hate" Christians... (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150155)

I hate my label as I'd never tell a non-Christian to stop swearing or stop drinking or stop screwing around or stop watching porn. I'd never use government or a nanny group to further a Christian agenda.

Maybe Christians are tired of seeing the proliferation of these things throughout society, because they see them as harmful to people whether they are Christian or not.

Maybe if more Christians took more of a stand and told people to stop swearing, drinking, screwing around or watching porn the society at large would be more courteous, have less drunk drivers, and broken marriages.

Sure, anybody can do whatever they want. That doesn't mean that their activities don't end up hurting other people directly or indirectly, Christian or not.

Re:I "hate" Christians... (1)

Krach42 (227798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150252)

You know... there's a part of the bible that speaks about eating non-kosher food. Because, remember, for a long time Christians had to be Jews first.

Then they started picking up Gentiles, and even Jewish Christians started picking up eating non-kosher foods.

I believe the essense of it says that you may feel that it's fine for you to eat non-kosher foods, but when you're in the house of a family that has remained kosher that you should follow the kosher rules in order to not tempt them, because they feel that being kosher is important for them.

In short, you may feel that as a Christian you're sick of all this "immorality" running around everywhere, but just think... at one point, for a Christian it was immoral to eat pork. It was immoral to eat dairy with meat. It was immoral for us to do a lot of things that we now do without a second thought as to if it might be Sin or not.

So, just because the morality of your culture is shifting doesn't mean you should be standing steadfast against it trying to hold on to your potentially out-dated moralities. In exchange, I as a Christian will continue to not tempt you by rubbing my "immorality" in your face.

As for non-Christians... guess what? Life sucks, and we can't control them. There's this thing called Temptation, and law-following Jews have managed to avoid eating pork for thousands of years surrounded by the temptation that every other culture on earth has been showing them.

So, wtf is your problem? You're saying that even though Jesus died to forgive yourself from being perfect, you're not capable of controlling yourself as well as a Jew can avoid eating pork? because that's just stupid to be saying, they're not any different than us.

Re:I "hate" Christians... (5, Insightful)

LordKazan (558383) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150262)

Maybe Christians are tired of seeing the proliferation of these things throughout society, because they see them as harmful to people whether they are Christian or not.

Sucks to be them - what hey see as harmful and what IS harmful are two completely different things

Maybe if more Christians took more of a stand and told people to stop swearing, drinking, screwing around or watching porn the society at large would be more courteous, have less drunk drivers, and broken marriages.

Christianity, especially not fundamentalist christianity, is not the answer to this.

First and foremost you have to prove swearing is harmful - a swear word is just a word, you choose to take offense. Now words can be used in a way that is intended to be harmful - but i can intend to insult you by calling you a "feces eating dog fornicator" without ever swearing.

The very concept of "swear words" is anathemic to free thought

No sexual relationships before marriage is equally unhealthy as too many - just unhealthy in different ways - and no sexual relationship with the person you are going to marry before you marry them can, and does, cause divorces

Drunk driving is unlawful, against even relativistic morals, etc - you don't need religion to say drunk driving is bad- and religion doesn't ameloriate the rate of alcoholism.

Broken marriages now.. that's something really ironic for a fundamentalist to preach about. It has been shown that the divorce rate among the most fundamentalist christians is TWICE that of the divorce rate among atheists and agnostics - and that the divorce rate between the two is pretty much linearaly related to the level of fundamentalism the couple is involved in. A nice example of this is Rush Limbaugh, or my fiancee's biological father is another good example of this.

Sure, anybody can do whatever they want. That doesn't mean that their activities don't end up hurting other people directly or indirectly, Christian or not.

Yep my looking at porn (alone and with my fiancee), farking my fiancee (and only two other girls ever before her), and swearing are really harming you!

oh the humanity!

PS: not all porn is tasteful, stuff that is really degrading to women is not only NOT HOT, but is pretty disgusting

Re:I "hate" Christians... (4, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150181)

Blah blah. Any solution that requires any personal responsibility is clearly going to fail, because the number of people who are willing to take any responsiblity for their actions is vanishingly small.

If you have a child, and he gets into a bottle of your pills and kills himself, is it:

A) The childs fault, for not knowing better
B) Your fault, for being careless
C) The pharmaceutical companies fault, for making the pill in the first place
D) The pharmacys fault, for making the pill bottle openable
E) A & B
F) C & D

The right answer is clearly 'B', but it seems like 'F' is the only popular option these days. It's got to be someone's fault, and obviously it couldn't be the parents fault, are you MAD?

Makes me sick. Not to bring up the Bush Corolary of Godwin's Law, but take 9/11. 1 day to happen, 5 years of finger pointing to follow. Why? We can't just say, "Okay, we all screwed up, let's learn something and move on." No no no, we've got to find out exactly whose fault it was that we didn't see it coming, so we can, I don't know, set them on fire or something.

It's getting hard to even blame the government for refusing to take responsibility. Jesus, look what we did to the tobacco companies! I missed the bit where they held people down and made them smoke, but it clearly happened at some point.

We've gotta stop the finger pointing, and man up to some responsiblity. It's freaking absurd.

Re:I "hate" Christians... (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150273)

I think the number of people who "won't take responsibility for themselves" is actually very small. The thing is that in the case you describe above (kid killing himself with pills), nobody would decide to sue themselves or their dead child because obviously that's ridiculous. The person who blames himself in that situation will not make the news.

Stop watching TV and reading the newspaper for a while and you will stop having such a warped perspective on reality. By warped, I mean the falacy of thinking that the cases reported on the news are the "normal" case when in fact they are of the "dog bites man" variety.

Re:I "hate" Christians... (4, Insightful)

bleckywelcky (518520) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150200)

Well, at least you put "hate" in quotations.

I think what so many of these religion-backed groups are missing (in the case of Christianity) is that God does not want people to enforce their will on others in order to make them moral and ethical people. Instead, God wants people to talk to one another and share the benefits of a moral and ethical life - lead by example, not by leash. God does not want societal laws to mandate morality and ethics in people who do not want to adhere to them. God wants people to appreciate the results of those morals and ethics, and make their own decision to live that life.

To take this point to the extreme, we don't have laws against murder because it is an immoral action, or because the founding fathers were religious and believed this one little religious law would fit fine in our laws ... We have laws against murder because our society could not properly operate without them. God would not want laws against murder, instead he would want everbody to appreciate everyone else enough that we would choose to discuss and resolve our problems instead of resorting to killing each other. Unfortunately, we have not yet achieved this altruistic state, so we do require such laws.

The same goes for many other laws that have existed for a long time - they exist because society as we know it could not survive without them, not because the government has mandated morality and ethics. However, many people dont see this (such as NIMF), and they are wrongly trying to mandate morality and ethics through law.

Why is it so difficult... (4, Insightful)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149963)

To get retailers to start carding everybody for games?

Parents should have the right to determine for themselves whether or not a game is appropriate for their child rather than worrying that the little tyke is at the store buying an M-rated title behind their backs.

Re:Why is it so difficult... (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150022)

And then everyone wonders why states are trying to pass laws to make that happen... If the stores would just DO IT ON THEIR OWN, no one would be trying to force it on them.

Movie theaters card kids for R-rated movies, why is this so hard?

Re:Why is it so difficult... (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150145)

Because they don't have to

First rule of freedom club? Everyone can do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Re:Why is it so difficult... (1)

Edgewize (262271) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150281)

Movie theaters don't have to, either. It's a purely voluntary, industry-regulated system. There are no laws involved.

Re:Why is it so difficult... (1, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150030)

I'm a retailer.

Don't you dare force me to parent anyone. My job is to meet my customers' demands. Parents shouldn't give their kids money if they're concerned.

Re:Why is it so difficult... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150114)

Do you mind carding people for games because you'll lose sales, or because you're lazy? Kids can steal money, you know...

Re:Why is it so difficult... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150169)

But it's even easyer to pirate the games. Why would they do through all that trouble?

Re:Why is it so difficult... (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150170)

Kids can steal money, you know..

If they are stealing money, then I think buying adult video games is probably the least of their problems. You know, kids can steal video games in stores that check ID, too. So I guess we should outlaw stores completely, so our kids can be 100% protected from reality at all times.

Re:Why is it so difficult... (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150186)

Do you mind carding people for games because you'll lose sales, or because you're lazy?

Could also be that he doesn't want to force people to show their ID when making purchases. But if you gave that option, you wouldn't have been able to ask "have you stopped beating your wife yet" -style question, now would you ?

Kids can steal money, you know...

Why would they, when they can just download the game from the Internet ? After all, stealing is wrong.

Re:Why is it so difficult... (5, Insightful)

jferris (908786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150268)

That is such an ignorant stance that it is hard to believe that you can't be trolling.

As a retailer, it is your job to provide the appropriate products to the appropriate customers. You attitude basically states that you would sell tobacco, alcohol, and firearms to anyone with the money to buy them. Nobody asked you to "parent" anyone. Apparently reading a piece of plastic is just too hard for some.

It will only become a matter of time before there are some sort of standards mandated by either law or the policy of a <gasp> retailer that will set the bar. Just because Johnny smokes, is fifteen, and his mother buys him cigarettes - it doesn't mean that the people don't care. If the retailer was cutting out the middleman by selling directly to Johnny, it wouldn't matter, would it? (By the way, that was a rhetorical question...)

What will turn this all around is when the parents of some seven year old sue the ass off of someone like you for gross negligence by selling them explicit adult content in the form of a game.

Re:Why is it so difficult... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150277)

AS a retailer you should no it's not as easy as that. be prepared to startt asknig for ID to sell AO games. It is coming, and it fits withen the current way adult material is sold in the US.

If I owned a retail store, I would start doing it now, then market it to get the trust of parents.

"Don't you dare force me to parent anyone."
There is a difference between crading someone and being there parent. Kids aren't allowed in Bars, Adult theaters, to buy booze, etc...

The games produced to day, aren't even close tot he games that where produced 10 years ago. The are nyuch more realistic, and can be a lot more graphic. You could do a whole porn movie in a game, and it would look pretty real. Something that would ahve been laughable to look at 10 years ago.

Games will be rated and handled just like movies, and it is now reasonable to do so.

Re:Why is it so difficult... (1)

CCFreak2K (930973) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150046)

They do. An arguement FOR carding (or otherwise barring minors from M games and such) is that some parents aren't responsible enough to determine if their child will get fucked up over a game. The problem is not them; the problem is other people trying to speak for the former in making vendors enforce the policy. If you catch my drift.

On a side note, some people do have a policy of not selling M games to minors, but some places don't enforce it all that much. I'm pretty sure that when I was 16 I could've walked out with GTA3 from some places around here.

It isnt difficult... (1)

chewties (879407) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150070)

I agree. I see no problem with retailers being required to card for every M+ rated purchase. I used to manage a movie theater and it was simply company policy to card for R+ rated films. There are no laws forcing movie theaters to enforce MPAA ratings, it's just something they do out of a sense of social responsibility. If an employee fails to enforce the company policy, they get punished. If a pattern is evident at a certain theater location, the management gets punished. It's not rocket science. I agree with the majority that parents should be ultimately responsible for their children, but a little social responsibility from game retailers sure wouldn't hurt.

Re:Why is it so difficult... (0, Offtopic)

egburr (141740) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150081)

Responding to your sig...

Grammer tip: 'Effect' is used as a noun. 'Affect' is used as a verb.

Grammar tip: Both affect and effect can be used as either a noun or a verb. Learn when each form of each word is appropriate. Consult a dictionary.

Re:Why is it so difficult... (1)

70Bang (805280) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150082)



You'd be surprised how many mommies & daddies are standing there with Timmy while he picks out a game. Timmy hands it to them, they look it over (front & back):
"Is this what you want?"
"Yes."
"Okay, let's go."

I could take a lunch to CompUSA and make a day of it.
n.b. Timmy is frequently no older than twelve or thirteen, usually less.


Grammar tip #2: effect isn't just a noun.
"Raising the price will effect a change in our revenue."


Re:Why is it so difficult... (1)

Miraba (846588) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150097)

I don't understand why it's so hard for parents to check out the games that their kids want. It's a simple matter of hitting Google to pull up a rating, and any decent review will mention the level of blood/sex/whatever. If you're worried that your kids are going to the store without you and hiding the games, find what's stored around the console/computer. No, this won't solve the problem 100%, but it should help.

I don't see a downside to carding people who buy games similarly to the way that teenagers are carded when going to or renting a movie. Can anyone give a sensible reason?

(In defense of my statement, carding happens at all stores and theaters where I live, but I obviously can't speak for every theater/rental chain in the country.)

Re:Why is it so difficult... (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150236)

I don't understand why it's so hard for parents to check out the games that their kids want.

What makes you think most parents give a shit? Come on, they are just games. With no sharp edges or easy-to-swallow pieces, either. The thing is, the people complaining here are not normal parents. They are professional whiners and prudes. They basically don't want anyone having fun. I think kids would be more traumatized by the "clean" indoctrinal media that members of the National Institute on Media and Family would be showing their kids.

A violent videogame is nothing compared to teaching your kid that s/he's a sinner, or teaching them that evolution doesn't exist. That will really screw them up.

Re:Why is it so difficult... (2, Insightful)

meisenst (104896) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150101)

It takes exorbitantly large fines and jail terms to stop bars and convenience stores from selling alcohol and cigarettes to children. You think that retailers are going to care about selling M-rated games to children when no penalties are in place if they do so? Sorry, no dice.

If you are a parent, become more active in your child's life. If they want to buy games that are rated as too violent or suggestive or whatever for them, get involved. Tell them why this is the case. Make sure that they understand why they shouldn't buy the game(s). And, after all this, if they still feel like buying the game(s), step in and stop them from doing it. You are a parent -- this is your JOB, to steer your children away from things that they should not be doing.

No matter how many committees or advisory boards or ratings exist out there, if you're not doing your job as a parent, 100% of the fault rests squarely on your shoulders.

Now, if you feel that your child should be allowed to play GTA: Vice City at the age of 10, so be it, but do the right thing, and make sure they know that this is a game, not reality. There is definitely a problem out there with (admittedly, a small number of) kids that think the subject matter of games is far too real.

Re:Why is it so difficult... (2, Interesting)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150122)

I worked at Target last year during the holiday season, in the electronics section. We carded every M-rated game we sold, as standard policy. I carded grandmas. (Partly so that they knew the game they were buying was M-rated, in case they were just working off a shopping list given them by some 8 year old...)

In many places this is policy. Where have you seen that it isn't?

(Of course, not all of my co-workers would card everyone. They'd let you slide if you looked old enough. But everyone carded anyone who we were in doubt about.)

Re:Why is it so difficult... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150128)

Why don't people start parenting their own children? I didn't get to fuck their mothers, they don't contain any of my genes, and except for the females, none of them will be calling me daddy.

Of course it really has nothing to do with children. Some people just want to force their conception of morality on the entire populace, and they drum up support for this with the tired "for the children" rhetoric that they have been using since time immemorial.

It never ceases to amaze me just how stupid some humans suggest all humans are. When they discuss how easily influenced they perceive children are, I wonder if when they were children if they were idiotic robots without the ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

Re:Why is it so difficult... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150214)

When they discuss how easily influenced they perceive children are, I wonder if when they were children if they were idiotic robots without the ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality.
Of course they were. That's why they're Christians today.

liability, costs, legality (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150149)

To get retailers to start carding everybody for games?

Because it's not a retail store's responsibility to raise your kids. And such stores could face lawsuits, for either denying someone a purchase, or for accidentally selling a game to an underage kid. Once the retailer takes action on this, they are also responsible for any outcomes. If they don't do anything, they are not liable. And it costs money to enforce rules and check IDs.

This is not like alcohol and tobacco, where there are actual laws that stores have to check ID, and underage smoking and drinking is actually illegal. It's not illegal for underage kids to buy a game that has been rated for older children. So, the stores should not do anything until the government changes the law.

Re:Why is it so difficult... (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150152)

rather than worrying that the little tyke is at the store buying an M-rated title behind their backs.

What is the kid doing at the store without you, if you're so afraid of the video games he's playing? Why is he playing games at home that you haven't ever looked at?

Try raising your own kids instead of getting the rest of us to do the job for you.

Re:Why is it so difficult... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150178)

Because it's invasive of privacy (yes, children have rights, even if we do limit them more than we do for adults), and because far fewer people think a 15 year old needs to be protected in the same fashion that a 6 year old does yet many 15 year olds don't have a government ID.

And frankly, because it's the parents' job to worry about their kids, not the store owners' and not the government's.

Re:Why is it so difficult... (1)

javaxman (705658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150229)

To get retailers to start carding everybody for games?

Um, do the do that for DVDs ? If yes, then you have a point. If no, then you're asking to hold games to a higher standard, and I'm going to ask why.

Re:Why is it so difficult... (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150272)

There are too many ways around it. Carding isn't going to make up for parenting. If we assume a "no parenting" situation, where the parents neither check the games or watch you play them, you can

1) Enlist a friend to buy it for you.
2) Get it on EBay/Amazon/EBGames (if I paid my parents back, they would let me use their credit card)
3) Illegal copies, either stolen physically or pirated off the Net (computer games)
4) Lawn/Garage Sale or Pawn Shop, where employees wouldn't know to check IDs.

Easy way to address the problem now... (4, Funny)

wasexton (907707) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149969)

Just install one of those kiddie mosquito noise generators http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/3 0/0021211&tid=126&tid=14> around the couters that sell AO only games.

National Institute on Media and the Family (4, Insightful)

gid13 (620803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149977)

Is it just me, or does that name just SCREAM "fundamentalist, religious, biased prudes"?

Re:National Institute on Media and the Family (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150016)

Yeah, but it's just one letter away from being a really cool acronym.

F*** Rating (1)

fembots (753724) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149982)

I thought ESRB has introduced a "F'king" rating so that stuff like hot coffee can fall into it.

Good in a way (4, Insightful)

slam smith (61863) | more than 8 years ago | (#14149992)

This is good in a way though, this battle is mostly being fought in the court of public opinion rather than being imposed by governmental fiat.

Re:Good in a way (1)

Temkin (112574) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150047)



For now... Pending the outcome of the 2006 Congressional elections, and the 2008 Presidential election.

Re:Good in a way (1)

Dukael_Mikakis (686324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150115)

It's good now, but that won't stop it from hitting heavier legislation.

The thing that makes video game regulation so different is that (unlike other polarizing issues such as abortion) the issue hasn't yet been classified as "Democratic" or "Republican" and is regarded as "relatively harmless" (unlike, say, abortion which has much heavier consequences and "real life" impact) and there is evidently a political "right side" (few politicians or people outside of gaming seem to have much interest in defending the "wrong" side). So you see this clamor where both parties are trying to stake their claim as being representative of the family-friendly side (Hillary and Lieberman for the Dems, Thompson et al for the Reps).

These advocates probably don't care nearly so much about the actual issue of violence in video game (an issue that can be actually quite easily resolved through other means ... parenting?) as they care about the opportunity to establish themselves as the clear "good guys" on an issue that doesn't have such life-altering consequences on an issue that will win their party substantial constituency (aside from the gamers, of course). This sort of thing is political gold.

Mediawise in general (3, Interesting)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150024)

I just gotta say, Mediawise's slogan ain't so bad:

"There's only one way to really know what video games your kids are playing
Be MediaWise®.
Watch what your kids watch. "

I don't understand... common sense?

Also, Mediawise's parent organiztion is the one that took extra pains to distance themselves from Jack, for the tactics he uses.

ESRB's job is not to be a censor? (2, Funny)

product byproduct (628318) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150033)

cEnSuRaBle

Re:ESRB's job is not to be a censor? (1)

rjfan (529592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150162)

I see a pattern here....oh wait. No "e"? You almost had me for a minute.

Re:ESRB's job is not to be a censor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150202)

"Censure" is not the same as "censor."

Re:ESRB's job is not to be a censor? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150206)

to say what is in something is not to censure, it is to inform.

This is no worse the a book reviewer saying the the Jaws book should be rated 'R' for sexual situation. It is differnt then saying "This book has sex in it, so remove it from the shelves."

What the fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150207)

How on earth did the parent get modded Interesting? That trash is just about as useful as those stupid numbers games where you take a numeric representation of Microsoft and the result is 666 a.k.a. the sign of the beast.

Re:ESRB's job is not to be a censor? (3, Funny)

LordEd (840443) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150263)

cEnSuRaBle

PRODUCing a wOrD Using CharacTers Belonging to their name is bY no means PROof that it is relateD to their Usual ConducT.

Besides, plEaSuRaBle also works.

Re:ESRB's job is not to be a censor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150280)

You must come from loUiSiAna.

Interesting (3, Interesting)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150038)

It says the board of the "National Institute on Media and the Family" is: David Walsh, Ph.D.; Douglas Gentile, Ph.D.; (his wife) Erin Walsh; Nat Bennett; Brad Robideau; (his daughter) Monica Walsh, MA; Sarah Strickland, David McFadden.

What are the odds?

Its ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150042)

That there is so much debate about these ratings and the pros and cons, and yet there is little or no application by parents... My kids swap games all the time with friends...

What is needed i think, is more focus on applications which allow parents to restrict the games on the computer or console. Next generation consoles already have built in parental controls and controls for PC games such as Game Controls http://www.childcontrols.com/ [childcontrols.com] and ENUFF http://www.akrontech.com/ [akrontech.com] are not fully mature.

Why a generic rating (2, Insightful)

Parham (892904) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150049)

Why do they just have to have generic rating. These companies should be obligated to print exactly what kind of material is in the game and let parents decide. I work in a video/game rental store, and I've seen mothers pick up M rated games for their 10 year old kids (I'm not joking) and I have to explain to them exactly why M doesn't just mean "blood". I have shocked more parents than I'd like to believe I have. An M game can have a hundred different things in it. I'd rather have a new system with more explanations.

Re:Why a generic rating (0, Flamebait)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150123)

The movie ratings have gone to this. Now an R-Rated film tells you exactly why it got that R Rating. Was it for gore and violence or for nudity and pervasive foul language?

Re:Why a generic rating (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150216)

The movie ratings? What about the game ratings - If you look at the back of each game it describes (using one of the generic descriptors shown below) what is in the game.

        * Alcohol Reference - Reference to and/or images of alcoholic beverages
        * Animated Blood - Discolored and/or unrealistic depictions of blood
        * Blood - Depictions of blood
        * Blood and Gore - Depictions of blood or the mutilation of body parts
        * Cartoon Violence - Violent actions involving cartoon-like situations and characters. May include violence where a character is unharmed after the action has been inflicted
        * Comic Mischief - Depictions or dialogue involving slapstick or suggestive humor
        * Crude Humor - Depictions or dialogue involving vulgar antics, including "bathroom" humor
        * Drug Reference - Reference to and/or images of illegal drugs
        * Edutainment - Content of product provides user with specific skills development or reinforcement learning within an entertainment setting. Skill development is an integral part of product
        * Fantasy Violence - Violent actions of a fantasy nature, involving human or non-human characters in situations easily distinguishable from real life
        * Informational - Overall content of product contains data, facts, resource information, reference materials or instructional text
        * Intense Violence - Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, gore, weapons, and depictions of human injury and death
        * Language - Mild to moderate use of profanity
        * Lyrics - Mild references to profanity, sexuality, violence, alcohol, or drug use in music
        * Mature Humor - Depictions or dialogue involving "adult" humor, including sexual references
        * Mild Violence - Mild scenes depicting characters in unsafe and/or violent situations
        * Nudity - Graphic or prolonged depictions of nudity
        * Partial Nudity - Brief and/or mild depictions of nudity
        * Real Gambling - Player can gamble, including betting or wagering real cash or currency
        * Sexual Themes - Mild to moderate sexual references and/or depictions. May include partial nudity
        * Sexual Violence - Depictions of rape or other sexual acts
        * Simulated Gambling - Player can gamble without betting or wagering real cash or currency
        * Some Adult Assistance May Be Needed - Intended for very young ages
        * Strong Language - Explicit and/or frequent use of profanity
        * Strong Lyrics - Explicit and/or frequent references to profanity, sex, violence, alcohol, or drug use in music
        * Strong Sexual Content - Graphic references to and/or depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including nudity
        * Suggestive Themes - Mild provocative references or materials
        * Tobacco Reference - Reference to and/or images of tobacco products
        * Use of Drugs - The consumption or use of illegal drugs
        * Use of Alcohol - The consumption of alcoholic beverages
        * Use of Tobacco - The consumption of tobacco products
        * Violence - Scenes involving aggressive conflict

Oh, these were copied off the ESRB site.

Re:Why a generic rating (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150199)

They do describe what the game contains-- or at least highlights. Turn the game over, and generally towards the bottom of the case it says something like "realistic blood and gore" or whatever. Point this out to the parents.

As for a new system with more details, where are you going to place them? The back of a game is pretty much standardized. Summery of the game, images of the game, capabilities of the game (eg. 2 player, requires memory card), and copyright information. Can't put it on the front either-- that's reserved for the game image and other logos. So where does this go? A binder for people to look through? I doubt any parent would be willing to spend more time buying a dumb game for their dumb kid.

Regulation of games is pointless (5, Insightful)

beeplet (735701) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150061)

The call to issue more AO ratings has little to do with rating accuracy, and more to do with NIMF's real agenda, which is to destroy the commercial viability of games it deems objectionable.

Sounds likely to me.

While it seems to me that an objective rating system could be a useful tool to parents, I am wary that it is probably the first step in restricting the sale of "violent" games to minors.

It just doesn't make sense to me to try to regulate the sale of video games. I am fine with legal age limits on movies, cigarettes and alcohol, which people often try to compare it to, but there are a few key differences:

1.) Movies, cigarettes and alcohol are relatively cheap. The ten or twenty dollars a teenager might have can go a long way. But what teenager has the $300 for a game console plus $50 per game without getting the money from his parents, which I would interpret as implict approval of their use? (And if a kid does earn that kind of money on his own, he is probably already sufficiently independent of his parents to make it a moot point.)

2.) Cigarettes and alcohol are relatively easy to consume on the sly, and short of never letting a kid out of the house, parents can't directly control what movies they see in theatres with friends. Games, on the other hand, pretty much require a setup that is going to be used at home, where presumably there is usually someone around to supervise. It's not like kids can sneak out after school and hang out in the woods playing GTA with their friends.

Anyway, my point is that the "protect the family" groups fundamentally misrepresent the danger posed to kids by violent games. And it seems especially hypocritical to claim to be "protecting the family" by undermining a parent's authority to have the final say in what is acceptable for their children... The regulation of games serves no purpose except to create the perception that these games are bad and thereby push one people's set of values on another.

Re:Regulation of games is pointless (1)

Gallenod (84385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150232)

There are more kids walking around with $350 than you might think. There are kids driving cars like Audi's and BMWs to high school nowadays -- brand new ones, at that. Even a 16-year old with a part-time minimum wage job can scrape the money together in a month or two. The cost of a game console and some games is within reach.

The real issue is parenting. With both parents working or distracted by other personal concerns, kids are left to regulate themselves. In single-parent homes, self-regulation may be even more likely. Then someone produces studies that claim large numbers of teenagers smoke, do drugs, or engage in sexual activity, even "Christian" kids. Rather than blame themselves, parents and their advocates seem to look for something else to blame, like Grand Theft Auto or Dungeons & Dragons.

Maybe the NIMF action is as much a cry for help regulating their own children (whom they ignored while crusading) as it is an attempt to legislate the behavior of others.

ESRB doesn't work anyway. (3, Insightful)

ErichTheRed (39327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150063)

I know if I was a kid, the most coveted games for me would be rated "AO" or "M", just because I technically couldn't buy them. As a kid, even if my parents were religious freaks, I would have just gone down the street to my friend's house, whose parents choose to expose their kids to everything instead of locking them up in a bubble.

I think the game manufacturers are probably quite happy with the ESRN simply because it adds an extra incentive to buy that title for kids who "can't". It's kind of like slapping those "explicit lyrics" stickers on CDs...doesn't do a thing.

anyone else find this part kinda funny (2, Insightful)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150066)

The reality is that publishers understand that retailers largely choose not to stock AO-rated games, and so in the interests of producing marketable games, publishers will oftentimes revise and resubmit a game that was initially assigned an AO by raters in an effort to produce an M-rated game. When this happens, the process starts again from the beginning, and each new version of a game is reviewed independently.

you mean that *gasp* the video game industry does the EXACT same thing the movie industry has done for years?? I really wonder about the mentality of these censorship groups.

Jeez! (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150069)

The National Institute on Media and the Family is not some kind of credible organization or industry group. The story really should have mentioned that they are a bunch of prudish Christian wingnuts. The same kind of people who would be linking Dungeons and Dragons to satanism 20 years ago.

Why pay them any attention? It's just advertising for them. Better to ignore such people, rather than feeding the trolls.

Re:Jeez! (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150163)

Signs you have a weak argument...

1. Dismiss opponent as insane... check!
2. Attack opponent with strawman... check!
3. Advocate censoring opponent... check!

In other words, why defend your own position when it's much less work to silence the opposition?

Violent games in the right context... (2, Interesting)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150072)

I have no problems with replacing all the monsters in Doom 3 with that purple-loving freak named Barney. Pokemons will work just as well. That should changed the M rating into a T rating. :P

Gee, I wonder why it got these grades (2, Interesting)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150080)

Ratings Education: C+
Retailers' Policies: B
Retailers' Enforcement: D-
Ratings Accuracy: F
Arcade Survey: B-
Industry's 10-year cumulative grade: D+

To begin, most parents I know don't enforce video game ratings in the same manner they do movie ratings. Most of us grew up with games unrated and turned out fine. The fact that retailers don't heavily enforce the policies goes to show how many people think the game rating system is silly in the first place.

As for the rating accuracy getting a failing grade, I whole heartedly agree that given the organization handing out these grades is politically motivated, they just want to push violet games out of the market by making as many as possible Adult Only. If this were a real issue, we'd have droves of pissed off parents with 16 year olds they thought were playing a different game. In reality, AO has the stigma of being equivalent to hard core porn. These games aren't the equivalent, and this really is more a political group crying they aren't getting their way. Uh oh, we've got a baby down. I repeat, baby down! Someone call the wah-bulance!!

Demographic chaning.. (1)

xtal (49134) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150099)

I'm part of the generation that grew up playing video games, and we're cruisin through the 30's now. It's natural that we'd want to see more adult-themed games. The wild success of GTA absolutely guarantees they will be there in the future, no matter WHAT the "moral majority" says. Money talks.

That said, call a spade a spade, kids can't buy porn either. But don't rate differently because it's a game, the same rules should apply to all media. As an adult, -I- pick what I want. Rate it how you want.

Correct me If I'm wrong... (1)

Ostien (893052) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150100)

But isint the only difference between an M and an AO rating is thatyou have to be 17 to buy a M rated game and 18+ to buy an AO rated game? Why is that year difference such a big deal? We all know there is not a whole hell of a lot of difference in a year. Especially when its between 17 and 18.

Re:Correct me If I'm wrong... (1)

Drakai (828042) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150260)

17 to 18 is a huge gap in time at that age. It is just one year in life and in general not a big deal but kids change so rapidly from 13 to 18 that you have to wait for everyone to reach the same page of maturity when writing stuff in the big book of rules. I have met 15 year olds that were indistinguishable from 18 year olds and I don't even get out that much. But that doesn't preclude late bloomers and impressionable kids who are just getting ready to step out on their own at 18.

Re:Correct me If I'm wrong... (1)

Scoth (879800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150279)

Probably the same reason you can't buy porn at 17 years, 364 days old but all of a sudden you're "mature" enough to buy it at 18. Or are too young for alcohol at 20 years, 364 days but suddenly are at 21. Arbitrary numbers. Have to have some sort of benchmark, and short of subjective "Is Bobby Ready to Drink?" sort of evaluations. Same with driving

The problem is, while some 16 year olds are clearly ready to drive, some clearly aren't. And right now there's no practical way of determining that short of extensive testing beyond the driving tests used currently in the US (dunno about other states, but where I am they're pretty much a joke).

I don't remember where I was going with this, so I'm just going to submit it now and hope it makes sense :)

So True (1)

thebdj (768618) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150151)

NIMF is just downright stupid. They are calling for more and more AO games, but similar material gets into R-rated movies (remember by the ratings that is 16 and older, M is 17+, AO is 18+) and you do not see them attacking the ratings issued out for them. Like most any organization, NIMF has an agenda and it just so happens their agenda is to "protect the children". While this might be valorous in the eyes of some, it is downright attrocious the odds to which they will go to meet their goals.

Here is a group, with some degree of political clout, who enjoys screaming foul and overacting to what they consider indecency. To remedy the problems with the media, they have decided to enlist the politicians of the US to pass laws making these foul games illegal to sell to minors and to make as many games AO as possible. As a matter of fact, the only good thing NIMF has done lately is put space between themselves and Jack 'The Hack' Thompson.

In the end, NIMF (and many parents) forget that it is not the responsibility of the government, or for that matter the game industry or retailers, to control the content of games that make their way into the hands of children. The responsibility for that falls squarely on the shoulders of parents, and it is tiring to see people who would rather hand off that responsibility to someone else, because they do not think they should be responsible for what their child watches, plays, or hears.

Our society is in a downward spiral. Within my own relatively short lifetime (born circa 1982), we have seen the PG-13 Rating (1984, not too big a deal I think), Parental Advisory sticker (1985), NC-17 Rating (1990, Though really a replacement for the X-Rating), Birth of the ESRB (1994), the TV Parental Guidelines (1997), and the V-Chip (required on 13+ inch TV post-2000).

I am sure I might have missed some things, but really it does paint a bad picture that slowly parents have begun to throw away responsibility to a computer chip and ratings boards, instead of actually watching to see what it is their children are doing with their time. I am just glad my parents looked past ratings and as such I got to enjoy a good many R-rated movies years ahead of time.

ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150160)

Am I the only one that thinks this silly organization's name is essentially Nymph? As in short for sex crazed maniac... doesn't seem like much of a family organization to me.. but i'd like to see thier brochure :)

Why be comparative when you can be inflammatory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150174)

I am amused that they cite the jump in the "violent content" of M rated games.

How many R-rated movies contain the EXACT SAME CONTENT that they are decrying video games for?

*cough* (1)

patonw (747304) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150176)

sounds like someone has a political agenda. Has anyone even heard of the NIMF?

I mean you very well can't rate content that's inaccessible except via a third party hack until you know about the hack.

Reality is that the NIMF are right-wing wackos... (1, Flamebait)

javaxman (705658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150180)

and when I say that I mean *extreme* right-wing wackos. They are the U.S. equivalent of the Taliban, except ( as far as we know ) they aren't heavily armed, just heavily funded.

True, normal Christians are done a great disservice by these extremists who pretend to speak for them. We should all applaud the ESRB for calling them out on their socio-political agenda.

Actually, I feel a little bad for lumping the NIMF in with a lot of right-wingers, many of whom are really *fiscal* conservatives but would prefer *less* government involvement in our lives, not more... the NIMF wants a nanny state that polices the morals of grown adults and children alike... and when they can't force the government to step in ( usually due to these annoying "rights" people insist on ), they lobby business to do it for them.

Really, culture and social values should be taugh by PARENTS, and the NIMF should find something more useful to do than trying to censor entertainment and media. Maybe feeding the hungry, if they're such good Christians.

NIMF has a political agenda, ESRB doesn't, mostly (2, Interesting)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150191)

I don't really see anything the original post doesn't cover.

A more or less neutral rater(ESRB), pretty much the gaming version of the MPAA, gives games ratings. Just like the 'NC-17' or the old X ratings, Movies intending to have a presence on the mass market theaters will work with the board to get a better rating. They'll edit the movie to get down to an R or PG-13. A PG-13 movie has a much wider viewing audience than a R, so there's pressures to make films even milder if it's a marginal R. And, just like the MPAA, there are going to be oddities on how they rate certain marginal films. The rating is being decided upon by a board of humans, on what can be called a piece of art. You can't necessarily make up a metric based on number of deaths, that'd sink movies like the titanic, war movies having battlegrounds. Neither can you measure by 'punches thrown'(what if it's a documentary about a boxer?), amount of curse words, etc. It's all relative.

NIMF appears to be an organization of fear mongers, trying to control society through the cry of 'it's for the children!'.

If they want more games to be assigned an 'AO' rating, well, then they should actually work on convincing stores to stock them. Otherwise you'll get a number of 'borderline' games, where, just like in films, they edit and tweak to get the lower rating so they can actually have a physical presence in stores like Best Buy, Walmart, Target. Heck, even places like Gamestop and such don't stock AO games.

I was allowed to rent and watch R rated movies, with my younger brother, from when I was 12. My parents had to submit a signed letter with the rental place for me to be able to, but they did it. Why? They felt that I was able to handle the difference between fiction and reality. Of course, ratings were tougher back then, to the point that today, people today would scratch their heads and go 'They gave THAT an R?'.

If NIMF has it's way, it'd end up having to call for legal enforcement of the ratings systems, because adults would be ignoring them even more, like my parents did for the R ratings. Their only restriction was a verbal 'no horror films'. Of course, they usually watched with us.

ESRB gets an "A+" (3, Funny)

jwd-oh (513054) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150208)

I have just created a World Wide orgnziation called World-wide Institute on Media and People (WIMP for short). We give ESRB an "A+" Why? Just Because! and the NIMF, they get an "F" and a "U" from the WIMP.

Obligatory reference to Futurama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150217)

An 'F'? They could have given the worst grade ever... an 'A minus minus'.

It's killographic! (2, Interesting)

Peldor (639336) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150243)

As stupid as this NIMF report is, the invention of the word "Killographic" is utterly brilliant. I'd put it right on the front of my box if I was a game designer.

I'm not just a gamer, I'm a killographer!

No creditability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14150244)

The first argument given to justify that their premise "The ratings system is broken" is talking about the hidden porn in Grand Theft Auto. Given that the porn was hidden, it says nothing about the rating system accuracy.

At least be consistent idiots when rating the ESRB (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150245)

It is funny how they go after some games, and not others.. like the violence and language in GTA for example, and not against the explciit songs in games like Dance Dance Revolution, like "Blow my Whistle, Bitch!" which anybody with a brain can be lead to believe that the song circulates around a guy asking a girl for a blowjob. C'mon, if you are going to go all superiority blowhard, at least do it evenly.... I give this group an F anyways for lack of consistency, Alack of logical and rational thinking and logic, and political motive cover-up.

Why is an AO rating so bad? (1)

kp_sidekick (924069) | more than 8 years ago | (#14150266)

If they put an AO rating on the game, why is this a bad thing? This is just telling the buyer that it is for "Adults Only"... Is that a bad thing to notify the consumer? I really don't see an argument here. I think the people that hate this the most are the teens that feel they have a right to buy whatever type of game they want... sorry kiddies, you don't! :P An idea for the game companies: Make games more fun instead of having to resort to sex, filth, and immorality! Be more creative instead of trying to use adult material as a selling crutch!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...