Beta
×

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!

ESRB Retorts to NIMF

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the go-away-or-i-shall-taunt-you-a-second-time dept.

Games 52

The ESRB has has released a statement condemning the National Institute for Media and the Family's analysis of the gaming industry and the ESRB. Specifically, the ESRB questions the group's research and bias in issuing the original damning analysis of the ratings board. From the article: "On points where the ESRB's methodology was questioned, the ratings board said that the real reason for the relatively low number of Adults-Only titles was a publisher-level determination to modify game content to avoid the AO label, which will usually prevent a title from being carried at retail."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Um. (3, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204035)

So basically, the NIMF is upset that the free-market determined that adult-only titles aren't worth selling rather than NIMF getting to decide it for them?

Take responsibility for once. (4, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204082)


Don't Christians comprise something on the order of 80% of the population of the U.S.? It seems to me that if these 'concerned citizens' actually took the time to parent their children, the issue of violent video games corrupting our nation's youth wouldn't be an issue...but it's ever so much easier to abdicate responsibility to a group who claims they're 'looking out for the children'. <sarcasm>Heck, all you have to do is read the first sentence of the tenth annual MediaWise video game 'report card' ("Risk to Children Continues to Grow") to know that these people are genuinely concerned about the safety of our little ones.</sarcasm>

Fellow Christians, I offer you a challenge: Quit trying to legislate morality, and start teaching it instead. Quit trying to lead by coercion, and instead lead by example. Look to the beam in your own eye before you try to remove the mote from your brother's eye.

Re:Take responsibility for once. (2, Insightful)

Azarael (896715) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204144)

Anyone who has any sense already agrees with what you are saying. The problem is, is that the situation has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with making noise and a big stink to get exposure. I'm not even sure if Christian groups like this one even care so much about the outcome of their actions as much as long as they get to come around to their way of thinking. Maybe they might as well call themselves the National Institute for Advertising Christian Values?

Re:Take responsibility for once. (1)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204204)


You're entirely right...the people involved in this aren't as interested in promotiong and preserving good Christian values as they are about justifying their own existence through rabid fearmongering and shameless self-aggrandizement. Thus, when confronted with an organization that actually helps to protect children through a rating system (which actually has a decent track record), their response is not to try to work with this organization, but decry its work as a failure.

Re:Take responsibility for once. (2, Interesting)

Meagermanx (768421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204313)

I'm tired of this "good Christian" this and "good Christian" that.
What, like the rest of us are assholes?
 
Who started the Crusades? People with Christian values.
Remember Mahatma "I'd be a Christian if it were not for the Christians!" Ghandi? He seemed like an alright guy to me.
 
Come on. Just because you're not Christian doesn't mean you don't have morals.

Re:Take responsibility for once. (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204588)

Who started the Crusades? People with Christian values.
Jesus no! (pun intended)
* The people who started the crusades may have called themselves Christians.
* You may even decide to call them Christians.
* They may even have been Christians.
* But they certainly did not have Christian values!

Re:Take responsibility for once. (1)

dargon (105684) | more than 8 years ago | (#14205429)

and they killed more christians than non-christians

Re:Take responsibility for once. (1)

Jtheletter (686279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204754)

Come on. Just because you're not Christian doesn't mean you don't have morals.

I agree with you. However, the way most fundamentalist (that distinction is important) Christians act it appears they think otherwise. The whole point of them trying to legislate morality is their 'my way or the highway' approach to morality. One true god and all that. That's the problem with most religions, is that they teach mutual exclusivity with other doctrines, and when your religion dictates your mortality, transitively anyone not of your religion is immoral (or perhaps amoral).

Re:Take responsibility for once. (1)

Krush3r (936981) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204796)

Christians are funny.

Re:Take responsibility for once. (2, Funny)

Jtheletter (686279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14210884)

Christians are funny.

Funny 'uh-oh', not funny 'haha'. ;)

Re:Take responsibility for once. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14205683)

Didn't the Crusades start because the Muslims kicked the Jews/Christians out of Jerusalem?

And Ghandi was an idiot when it came to 'what do we AFTER the British leave'. India isn't exactly the modern moral leader itself.

Re:Take responsibility for once. (3, Insightful)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204189)

Quit trying to legislate morality, and start teaching it instead.

The problem is that too many people are too lazy to teach their kids. And too many people who we don't want teaching our kids are trying legislate their beliefs into them. Yes, teaching the kids works great. But there are too many poeple with too loud voices that are reaching throught the law to try to make what they want to be right, right. In other word (not saying they're the best institutions) private schools will teach your kids what you want them to, but public schools will teach what the loudest complainer wants them to.

The majority can only rule if they'll get off their asses and do something about it.

Re:Take responsibility for once. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14206905)

The majority can only rule if they'll get off their asses and do something about it.

--
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...


Yeah, man. Let's do that. Maybe tomorrow, or something, like, after coming up with that witty sig, you know? Yeah. Pass the joint...

Re:Take responsibility for once. (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204231)

As a parent I agree with you entirly. Though I do tend to have frequent problems with my childs friends exposing them to unappropriate content (I'm sorry but I don't think a 7 year old should be watching South Park.. call me ultraconservative if you wish.. though he first season should be watched by all! :)

Anyways, as a realist I understand that this isn't the governments job, though it is kinda depressing when I have to explain to my kid that she can't play at so in sos house because their parents don't understand the idea of limits.

Why should only Christian parents be challenged? (4, Insightful)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204255)

Whereas the essence of your post is correct, I find it irresponsible of you to target Christians in your post. The simple fact of the matter is that whereas most people might identify themselves as Christians, the majority of them probably don't live up to the standards that they claim Christ represents.

Personally, I'm agnostic. So, why do you not also direct your challenge to me? The simple fact is that parents regardless of their religious beliefs or identification should be should be held to the same level of responsibility. Whether the parents are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, agnostic, or even athiest, personal responsibility and the need to properly raise children in moral and ethical values is totally unrelated to their religious beliefs. All parents should be challenged to lead by example, not just Christian parents.

Now, I understand that NIMF is a Christian group, but to target your challenge solely at Christians is irresponsible - some might argue that it's mildly inflammatory as well. I'm sure there are parents in other religions who would love to legislate morality as well, and that's just as wrong. One need only look to non-Christian theocracies in other parts of the world to see what life is like when morality is dictated by law. So, from that perspective we're in complete agreement; however, all parents should be teaching their kids right from wrong, regardless of religious beliefs - or lack thereof - or the target of said teaching, be it video games, TV, movies, music, etc.

Re:Why should only Christian parents be challenged (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204317)

Yea, but what if the parent is Satanic or a Scientologist even, do we really want them teaching morality! :)

Yea its flame bait, though for a bit of fact I know someone who used to be in Scientology who states that a big part of their teaching is that morality is whatever gets the best result for you and you should strive to bend the rules as much as possible to succeed.

Re:Why should only Christian parents be challenged (1)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204415)

No, it's certainly valid. I wouldn't consider it to be flamebait, although I will confess that it does expose a chink in my argument's armor. :) Morality and ethics in many ways (if not exclusively) represent how you would treat others. So, someone who has good ethics and morals should be looking out for the betterment of others if not all, whereas the examples that you give are religions that from my understanding are self-serving and irresponsible with respect to others. So, would be be able to truly expect them to teach their kids right and wrong within societal norms?

I don't mean that to be flamebait, as much as it sounds like it. Seriously! It's just that those religions from what I understand (and I confess that I have not bothered to research them) are more of a "do whatever I feel like doing because it's good for me" mentality. So, I would not expect them to be concerned with video game, music, or TV ratings or warnings. I could be wrong, though.

Re:Why should only Christian parents be challenged (1)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204445)


Whereas the essence of your post is correct, I find it irresponsible of you to target Christians in your post.

All I'm doing is targeting the people responsible for the problem.

The simple fact of the matter is that whereas most people might identify themselves as Christians, the majority of them probably don't live up to the standards that they claim Christ represents.

Which I believe was the substance of my previous post.

Personally, I'm agnostic. So, why do you not also direct your challenge to me?

Because the fundies are the ones who want to legislate the morality....not the agnostics.

The simple fact is that parents regardless of their religious beliefs or identification should be should be held to the same level of responsibility.

No argument here...I just find it galling that fundamentalists can preach about what is best for America, but throw up their hands and admit defeat when it comes to actually doing what is best for their own children. If I was a better Christian, I could probably come up with a relevant Bible passage here to illustrate my point, but as it is....well, perhaps a more bible-savvy reader could help me out here.

Now, I understand that NIMF is a Christian group, but to target your challenge solely at Christians is irresponsible - some might argue that it's mildly inflammatory as well.

I certainly hope it was inflammatory...that was pretty much the whole point. In essence, I'm challenging the fundies to put up or shut up.

I'm sure there are parents in other religions who would love to legislate morality as well, and that's just as wrong. One need only look to non-Christian theocracies in other parts of the world to see what life is like when morality is dictated by law.

Exactly. And that's precisely what keeps me awake at night.

In conclusion, when I challenged Christians to lead by example, I certainly didn't mean that exclusively...I only targeted my fellow Christians for two reasons. One: because, frankly, they're the problem, and two: as a Christian myself, I feel I have both a right and a duty to help guide my fellow Christians back on course. Of course, not all Christins are guilty of this, and this offense isn't confined to the ranks of Christianity, either...but Christians are in the vast majority here, and it's a fact that the movement to legislate morality in this country is being spearheaded by them, so they are who I addressed.

Re:Why should only Christian parents be challenged (1)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204758)

Okay. I can do the "breaking up the response into multiple segments" thing as well. (Someone refresh my memory on that term, please.)

All I'm doing is targeting the people responsible for the problem.

Nice blanket statement. There is nothing to indicate that NIMF is 100% Christian. I have no doubt that all major demononations are represented within, regardless of the percentage.

I just find it galling that fundamentalists can preach about what is best for America, but throw up their hands and admit defeat when it comes to actually doing what is best for their own children.

Oh, come now. That's a cop-out. We see this all over the place. Politics, religion, business. Such hypocrisy is not relegated only to fundamentalists. Every person who is reading this thread can cite an example where s/he witnessed such an action. In fact, I sincerely doubt that any of use are guiltless of doing that as well.

I also have to challenge your statement that they are a Christian group by design. Their About Us page clearly states The National Institute on Media and the Family is an independent, nonpartisan, nonsectarian, and nonprofit organization that is based on research, education, and advocacy. They do not identify themselves as Christian. They identify themselves as being not restricted to any religion or denomination. The fact that they might be predominantly Christian is by the nature of 80% of the U.S. being Christian. So, again, I see no reason for you to be targeting Christians in your post. The issue of video game violence/sex/etc. is one that people from all religions are concerned about. Not all people, just all religions.

Exactly. And that's precisely what keeps me awake at night.

Melatonin. 3 mg about 1 hour before bed time. Works great.

Re:Why should only Christian parents be challenged (1)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204915)


Nice blanket statement. There is nothing to indicate that NIMF is 100% Christian.

Nice straw man. There is nothing in my posts that claims it is.

Oh, come now. That's a cop-out. We see this all over the place.

If you had actually read through my last post, you would have seen that I am not portraying this as a purely Christian issue. Here's the last paragraph again for you:
In conclusion, when I challenged Christians to lead by example, I certainly didn't mean that exclusively...I only targeted my fellow Christians for two reasons. One: because, frankly, they're the problem, and two: as a Christian myself, I feel I have both a right and a duty to help guide my fellow Christians back on course. Of course, not all Christins are guilty of this, and this offense isn't confined to the ranks of Christianity, either...but Christians are in the vast majority here, and it's a fact that the movement to legislate morality in this country is being spearheaded by them, so they are who I addressed.


I also have to challenge your statement that they are a Christian group by design.

And I have to challenge your insinuation that I made such a statement. Funny how you can do the 'breaking up the response into multiple segments' thing, but not in this instance, since I never made such a statement for you to quote.

Melatonin. 3 mg about 1 hour before bed time. Works great.

And you top it all off with an insulting, offtopic, and flippant remark. By now it's painfully obvious that you're a fundie masquarading as an agnostic, so your mindless, off-base rants about me 'targeting Christians unfairly' doesn't come off as the self-serving pablum it actually is.

In conclusion, log off before you hurt yourself.

Re:Why should only Christian parents be challenged (1)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 8 years ago | (#14205052)

You apparently need to go back and look at your posts. "All I'm doing is targeting the people responsible for the problem." You make a declaration to Christians that you challenge them to be parents then follow up with the statement that you're targeting the responsible people, then expect people not to make the correlation that you are accusing NIMF of being a Christian group or at worst that only Christians are responsible for this surge in refusing to take parental responsibility? Wow.

Actually, what's painfully clear here is that you're so used to people agreeing with you that when someone challenges you you completely lose all sense of rationalization. Your completely immature statement about "logging off before you hurt yourself" is just proof of this. I expect a better repose from children, not from a supposedly articulate adult. The last paragraph was what is referred to as a "joke" or "levity". (It also works, by the way.)

People disagree. It's the real world. Get over it.

Re:Why should only Christian parents be challenged (1)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#14205423)


You make a declaration to Christians that you challenge them to be parents then follow up with the statement that you're targeting the responsible people, then expect people not to make the correlation that you are accusing NIMF of being a Christian group or at worst that only Christians are responsible for this surge in refusing to take parental responsibility? Wow.

I expect others to read through my entire post and rationally discuss the contents. You, however, seem more comfortable cherry-picking individual statements, taking them wildly out of context, and making wild suppositions based upon wholly indefensible 'correlations'. Yes, I did say that "All I'm doing is targeting the people responsible for the problem." This is because Christians comprise approximately 80% of the population, and it is Christian groups that are responsible for the push to legislate morality here in the U.S.. Note that I didn't accuse NIMF specifically of being a Christian group. If you'd actually take the trouble to read my posts, you'd see that, but then your 'argument' would fall apart, wouldn't it?

I also expect others to debate me without distorting my position, but I see you aren't up to that, either. In my last post, I pointed out two of your distortions, and invited you to support them with fact. Since you didn't bother to address either, I'll repeat them:
  • You claimed that I said the NIMF was 100% Christian.
  • You claimed that I said the NIMF was Christian by design.

Either provide quotes from me substantiating these claims, or admit that they are baseless and retract them (preferably with an apology).

Actually, what's painfully clear here is that you're so used to people agreeing with you that when someone challenges you you completely lose all sense of rationalization.

I'm not the one distorting my opponent's position to further my own personal agenda.

Your completely immature statement about "logging off before you hurt yourself" is just proof of this. I expect a better repose from children, not from a supposedly articulate adult. The last paragraph was what is referred to as a "joke" or "levity". (It also works, by the way.)

I see...when you do it, it's 'levity'...but when it's done to you, suddenly it's 'immature'. Somebody call a whaaaaaaaaaaaambulance.

People disagree. It's the real world. Get over it.

Adults expect you to discuss things rationally. Get over it.

Re:Why should only Christian parents be challenged (1)

Joseph Hardin (849365) | more than 8 years ago | (#14206533)

I also expect others to debate me without distorting my position, but I see you aren't up to that, either. In my last post, I pointed out two of your distortions, and invited you to support them with fact. Since you didn't bother to address either, I'll repeat them: * You claimed that I said the NIMF was 100% Christian. * You claimed that I said the NIMF was Christian by design.
Whether you meant it or not, it really did come off as you implying those things. Probably not intentional, but thats at least how I read it also, and I did read all of the post. Overall, besides for the arguing about who implied what, I really do think you both are right for the majority of your posts. This is kind of an interesting argument, as at first I thought the OP was just flamebait, and really liked the second posts stance. Then the follow up post made me believe the OP didn't really mean what he said how it sounded. Can't we all just get along? :)

Re:Why should only Christian parents be challenged (1)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 8 years ago | (#14208549)

I know you can't do this on the internet, TripMaster, but there is a little thing I've started to doing to people when they're stupid infront of me in an arguement.

I slap the shit out of them. If they attempt to have me arrested, I will profess that since I am ordained, and a Discordian Zen-Buddhist Master, I was giving them religious counselling by slapping them. I.E., trying to snap them out of their rut.

Re:Why should only Christian parents be challenged (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14205192)

First, you say "All I'm doing is targeting the people responsible for the problem." But then, you say that the people you actually think are responsible for the problem are the fundies. So why did you address your original post to the 80% of the population who identify as Christian in any way whatsoever, rather than the tiny minority who are actually responsible for the problem?

Re:Why should only Christian parents be challenged (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14206165)

The simple fact of the matter is that whereas most people might identify themselves as Christians, the majority of them probably don't live up to the standards that they claim Christ represents.

I thought that the whole point of Christianity was that no one can live up to the standards that Christ represents.

Re:Take responsibility for once. (1)

Xarius (691264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204282)

I agree on principle that American, and western generally, culture needs to learn to exercise responsibility. However no parent has the time or resources to personally test every aspect of a product before giving it to a child.

Would you personally smother your face with every product, or lick it, or swallow it, or stand on it, just to see if it's suitable or safe for your kids? Doesn't the label saying "not safe for 0-3 year olds" help just that little bit? The ratings system is perfectly fine as an advisory to parents, as it gives a general overview of what the content is. However the parents are also free to check it out for themselves.

Re:Take responsibility for once. (1)

Schart (587279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204530)

(Grandparent forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth)

I think you are misunderstanding his (the grandparent's) point. He is neither advocating micro-management style parenting NOR claiming that "not safe for 0-3 year olds" types of labels aren't useful as a guideline. Rather, his point (nee, my interpretation of it) is that people and organizations with goals and thinking similar to this NIMF outfit are trying to legislate morality and basically tell you, "We know what's right for your children, and his children, and her children, and their children, and..." and their respective flocks have much of their responsibilities seemingly washed away ("I don't need to teach little Billy anything because everything is already aligned with my moral compass - I'll just let Pat Roberts teach him!") thus leading to lazy parenting.

The problem is easily spotted: what's right for your kids and what's right for mine are probably going to differ somewhere between mildly and completely. Trying to get the government+media to lay down the law and tell everybody what's right for every child in every instance is wrong and a giant step backwards in the evolution of our society. I won't even get into the area of free speech and censorship... I'm probably firmly OT by now anyway.

The grandparent is advocating that parents take a more active roll in shaping their children's views and morals such that if said children are (God Forbid!) exposed to something they "shouldn't" be exposed to they will have the tools and rational thinking skills to be able to not be unduly influenced. In short, think for yourselves and give your children the ability to do the same!

Apologies for any incoherency. I hope at least some of what I was intending to say came through my muddles mess of words.

Re:Take responsibility for once. (2, Interesting)

Shad_the_protector (931920) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204558)

Well, yes it is hard to test every aspect, and we need ressources. But here the problem is that we don't always listen or even take care about those ressources.

It stays the matter of the parent to actually make sure that it is good for their child. When I'm buying a game named Grand Theft Auto, I can assure you that I'm not waiting for a 6yo game. Even without the M or AO rating. And with a quick look to the game boxcase, it is even easier to do that. If you are not really sure of the content, then just check for more info, Review, store clerk, internets. These don't take long to do and could save a lots of trouble.

Re:Take responsibility for once. (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 8 years ago | (#14205141)

However no parent has the time or resources to personally test every aspect of a product before giving it to a child.

Then they can:
a) Look at the box
b) Read it's rating on the box (we're talking games marked 'M' for Mature as in 17+ here)
c) Read what game reviewers and "christian" groups are saying about it

They don't have to review the game, they just have to see what people are saying about the game.

Re:Take responsibility for once. (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#14205197)

The problem is those damn 20% who raise their kids atheist or jewish or hindu or whatever. You never know when one of those kids is going to show up at your kids school and start shooting up the place. Do you seriously want to leave the responsibility over whether your child lives or dies to other parents??? Face reality, we need laws to force parents to be responsible, and to constrain their children for the sake of ours when those parents aren't responsible.

Re:Take responsibility for once. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14205651)

Face reality, we need laws to force parents to be responsible, and to constrain their children for the sake of ours when those parents aren't responsible.

Sure, I agree. This is why I think we should never try minors as adults, and parents should share in the punishment for the crimes of their children (besides possible civil tort for damages.) People need more motivation to be responsible parents.

When someone's minor-age child kills someone, I vote we sterilize the parent.

Less AO rated titles is bad? (1)

protektor (63514) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204116)

So let me get this straight that fewer titles rated AO is bad or is it bad that there are not more titles that get the AO rating. They have me confused. I thought they wanted fewer AO titles. hehe.

I think the ESRB is right on this one. (2, Insightful)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204136)

Adults Only is a pretty bad rating to have on your game as it severly cripples your potential shelf space. Looks to me like the NIMF wants the ESRB to start handing out AOs like candy. That's just a bad idea. Watering down what AO stands for will just lead to more stores stocking AO titles and will lead to the need for some sort of Super AO category.

Re:I think the ESRB is right on this one. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204376)

I'd prefer if they did that and games stopped cutting content just because some manager at Walmart decided it'd be good for their image not to sell such "evil" games.

Re:I think the ESRB is right on this one. (1)

jmccay (70985) | more than 8 years ago | (#14206047)

Everyone can point the finger. If game producers didn't create games that causes people to think twice--once their kid has started playing it because the game box looed harmless, this would not be an issue. 80 to 90% of the games produced today are just plain stupid with lacking in imagination and creativity. Instead, the rely on killing people and such to get kids to ask for it.
      Whether you like it, or not, this is a somewhat capitalistic society, and if place like Walmart find out that they'll get boycotted for the violent games they sell, you bet the Walmarts will ask for "toned down" versions. Walmart does the same thing with music. The almighty buck determines what gets bought, and while a lot of people buy these games, I doubt the walmarts of the country would risk other sales just so you can buy the latest cop killer game.

Re:I think the ESRB is right on this one. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14209898)

I'm not sure why Walmart is doing that but I doubt people would really boycott them because of such a minor thing (and hell, how many people can really boycott Walmart in the US?).

This creates an artificial barrier for game content especially since the AO label is given out very quickly for even nudity. Sure, excessive violence doesn't need to be in games (besides, games like Manhunt or God of War got M rantings despite excessive violence) but this is effectively preventing any major publisher from making games involving nudity or sex even though movies can get away with that.

Re:I think the ESRB is right on this one. (1)

jmccay (70985) | more than 8 years ago | (#14216103)

There are plenty of people willing to boycott Walmart. It is usually those people who have the conviction to stand up for what they believe. Walmart will do what ever it takes to insure it doesn't piss-off what it considers as it's customer base. If a significantly sized group of this base reacts to something, like say foul language in a CD, then Walmart decides not to sell that cd. In return, the artist, record company, or some other party with a financial involvement/interest will changes things so as to not lose the potential market. Both of these choices Walmart's & the person with the financial interest are usually done in a way to avoid hurting the potential for financial gain.

      As for the barrier, nudity & violence are really the signs of a poor writer--whether it is tv, movies, or games. Some of the best games that last the test of time (or at least produce a lot of sequals) don't have a lot of nudity in them. Take Final Fantasy & Civilization for example. In the modern market nudity & violence have been the tools used to lure in the masses to the product in question. It doesn't require as much thought as putting in a situation that avoids it. It's cheap thrills. As P. T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute." Personally I think both the movie & entertainment industry need a rewrite in the rating used, and I know I am not the only one.

AO and M should be combined. (1)

Brantano (908473) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204137)

I dont understand why people constantly want to put the gaming industry in a seperate category for entertainment. AO games probably shouldnt be sold in stores, i mean, do you walk into your local suncoast video store expecting to see "Ass Parade 55"?

I will agree however that the real problem is that the AO rating isnt deserved for the most titles that its given to. GTA:SA even with the 'sex scene' (that didnt even show nudity) doesnt require an AO rating. Games with topless nudity or even sometimes full frontal nudity shouldnt require an AO rating, this isnt porn, its nudity. You dont see blockbuster not selling rated R movies with nudity in them do you?

I think the only solution, and the ESRB needs to really think about, is changing the Mature and AO rating into something different, maybe even splitting them into three or four categories or maybe even having both ratings pulled into one rating.

I'll say this again, excessive blood and nudity do not need an AO rating. Hardcore sex is really the only thing i would even consider giving an AO rating too, and these games dont belong in game stores anyway.

Re:AO and M should be combined. (1)

Azarael (896715) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204187)

Maybe it would make more sense to bring game ratings in line with movie ratings (if they aren't already) and publisise this fact. At least then the ESRB would have the leverage of equivocating their ratings with ones that are presumably more accepted by the public.

Re:AO and M should be combined. (2, Informative)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204223)

They are kind of in line.

AO == NC-17
M == R

And the AO vs. NC-17 has roughly similar effects on the actual distribution that a title will get in its respective industries.

The complaint raised is similar to saying that not enough movies are given the NC-17 rating. The reason more aren't is the exact same reason as the one the ESRB gives: content toned down to allow for greater distribution channels.

Re:AO and M should be combined. (2, Insightful)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204440)

The difference, though, is what the poster noticed - you can have a movie with tons and tons of sex, nudity, etc. and get an "R" rating. Eg. "Eyes Wide Shut" - a similar game wouldn't stand a chance of dodging the Ao bullet.

The fact is that by the MPAA's standards, GTA would still be an "R" rated project instead of higher "adult" ratings.

Re:AO and M should be combined. (1)

Starsmore (788910) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204362)

Actually, I can walk down to my local Suncoast and get "Ass Parade 1" all the way up to "Ass Parade 55". I just need to move aside the piece of black plastic they have covering the front of the DVD's case.

Re:AO and M should be combined. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14204932)

I'll say this again, excessive blood and nudity do not need an AO rating. Hardcore sex is really the only thing i would even consider giving an AO rating too, and these games dont belong in game stores anyway.

And why is that exactly?

Think about it this way: Someday, sometime in the future, you probably want your children to have sex. You want them to find someone, and maybe have some kids.

Do you ever want your kids to murder someone? Probably not.

So why is it okay to show "kids" (rated R) graphic violence and murder, but not graphic sex (rated X)? Seems to me it should be the other way around.

Geez... (2, Funny)

Havenwar (867124) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204241)

obsession is never good, no matter what religion. Especially when the obsession is all about how other people should be allowed to live their lives.

No, if these people are examples of God's finest... sign me up for a trip to hell.

Forget the NIMFs (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14204428)

I'm more interested in the MILFs. For every prudish NIMF in the world there are at least two hot MILFs that are just begging for it.

Re:Forget the NIMFs (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 8 years ago | (#14208393)

Isn't "prudish nymph" an oxymoron? :)

Oh Madame Bouchard.... (1)

Trails (629752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14204458)

My grade 1 teacher, I should have used that one on you!

"Oh yeah? Well I give your report card an F!!! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!"

All this fuss over a few NIMFomaniacs. (1)

GrpA (691294) | more than 8 years ago | (#14206776)

Maybe I've been missing it, but it's a rather ironic poor choice of title to choose to represent themselves isn't it?

GrpA

AO is Correct (1)

writerjosh (862522) | more than 8 years ago | (#14221182)

I think a lot of those games, Like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, should have an AO rating attached to them. Who cares about whether or not this limits their shelf potential, some of these games go over the edge when they condone killing cops and prostitution.

Right or wrong is not the issue, what is the issue is that certain content should be kept out of reach of minors. You wouldn't put a porn video right next to Barney's Big Adventure on the shelf just to satisfy the porn distributor's "right" to exist on the shelf, would you? I'm not suggesting to ban the making of such AO games, I'm just saying rate them for what they are and do what you need to do to keep them out of minor's reach, don't water down the rating just to make a few bucks.

Re:AO is Correct, but whats the real difference? (1)

mikek3332002 (912228) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236038)

It wasn't although the game was rated E for everyone it was rated for 17+ so why all this argument to raise the year by one?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?