Ratings..

[Ibn-Khaldun]

When you purchase games to you look at the ratings (18+ or 16+ and so on) of those games?

Will you buy a game similar to let's say Left 4 Dead to 12 year olds?

I'm not against these FPS games. Not at all. From time to time I enjoy shooting some holes against my opponents in Battlefield 2 and games like that but I wouldn't want my kid to play it. It's because he get's so carried away that sometimes it seems that he don't understand that these are just games and in real life you shouldn't be that aggressive and shooting someone is bad thing.

So, I would like your opinions about those ratings. Especially from younger members of the Org.

[rajpoot]

Well, those ratings are there for a reason......a kid ought not to be allowed to play GTA 4, because if he gets too 'into' the game, he'll start looking at all the stuff depicted as favourable........sort of.
Anyhow, movies are a lot worse than these violent games when it comes to inciting violence.

[TinCow]

This is probably a backroom topic.

I have never personally paid any attention to ratings, but I'm also 30 so they don't really apply to me anyway. I do not have children, but I would never look at the ratings either when deciding whether any of my children could have a particular game. It's an entirely subjetive thing that should be decided on a case-by-case basis. There are plenty of 8 year old kids are are mature enough to understand that shooting someone in a game doesn't mean it's ok to shoot someone in real life. There are also plenty of 28 year olds who are not mature enough to make that distinction. For this reason, I support the various US rating systems for games, movies, music, etc. They are advisory only, and meant to help parents make the decision for themselves. Mandatory government regulations, such as in the UK, are nothing more than censorship in my opinion.

[Jolt]

Well, I played games with ratings much higher than my age when I was a kid, but I was never affected by it. I have developed to become a good civic social person which kills cops, zombies and Germans...mwahahahaha.

So yeah, at least when a kid has a sense of responsibility, personality and self-conciousness, ratings are useless.

[frogbeastegg]

Since these threads usually turn into discussions about censorship, government control, morals and such I shall boot it over to the backroom.

[pevergreen]

I do take a look, but Australia still doesn't have an 18+ rating for games, so we have to get them down to Mature 15+...

I was about 12 when I started playing proper violent games, nothing changed me.

[LittleGrizzly]

If a kid is some crazed physco who can be tipped over the edge by a computer game chances are he was highly unstable anyway.... i think the ratings are far too protective.... for games and movies...

I would happily let my 15 year old* play GTA 4, depending on how i judged him to be potentially younger...

*hypothetical 15 year old...

[naut]

Gah, I have to find the link. There was a rather comprehensive study recently that said that the gore/violence of those games isn't the over-riding factor of why people play them. It's to do with achieving a goal or something. ~

It's for the parents to decide.

[Yoyoma1910]

I think they should adopt my rating system:

[Hooahguy]

my parents go by them, but i dont. but now it doesnt matter since im 17 anyhow.
i bought Company of heroes and Crysis, both M games, without my parent knowing.
when they asked, i said "its a modification of RTW."

i love how clueless they are....

[Subotan]

It depends on the child. When it comes to parents buying it for their kids, if their kids are mature, sensible kids, then sure, go nuts, as I think the age limit should be taken as mental age, not physical age. Of course, that's impossible to enforce, but good parents should be able to tell whether Manhunt is suitable for their 13 year old child. Or not.

What pisses me off is when you have The Daily Fail etc complaining about violent video games, and then those same parents who read it will buy exactly the same games for their kids. I'm sure you've all seen 40+ mums walk into game shops and purchase Gears of War/Call Of Duty, despite it being obviously for their kids. Of course, knowing that I'll annoy the Daily Heil just encourages me to wander around as Leon Kennedy, blowing crazed villagers away with shotguns (Resi 4 is a 15 in the UK, the only place in the world where it is ). Or go on 4chan.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Vuk]

When you purchase games to you look at the ratings (18+ or 16+ and so on) of those games?

Will you buy a game similar to let's say Left 4 Dead to 12 year olds?

I'm not against these FPS games. Not at all. From time to time I enjoy shooting some holes against my opponents in Battlefield 2 and games like that but I wouldn't want my kid to play it. It's because he get's so carried away that sometimes it seems that he don't understand that these are just games and in real life you shouldn't be that aggressive and shooting someone is bad thing.

So, I would like your opinions about those ratings. Especially from younger members of the Org.

I would not worry about letting your kids play shooters. There was a study just a little while ago that showed that people do not play it for the killing, but for the challenge. Kids will always play shooters, whether it is on a computer or with the their fingers in a playground. I think the important thing is for the parent to make sure that the child understands as he gets older, the difference between a game and real life. Think of total war, that will not make your kid a ruthless dictator (if it does, I will never post again :P), it is just a game. As long as you steer clear of games like Grand Theft Auto that shows delibrate degradation of human life for fun, and teaches bad morals, I do not think it will be a problem.
Of course I am neither a kid nor a parent, just giving my opinion if you are interested.

Vuk

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Can't stand any sort of enforced rating system. Guidelines? Sure, then the power is still the parents hands. But for video game stores/movie theaters to be able to say, you can't watch this, because you are not X age is absurd. Especially when a kid even has a parent buy the ticket and then when he presents the ticket to get in they won't let him in. The kid has the ticket, the movie is getting money from him and they say he can't watch the movie he just support buy buying?!? This is why lots of younger people are pirates.

As private establishments, video game stores and movie theaters are fully within their rights to refuse service, especially since they have an economic incentive (ie, avoiding negative publicity) to do so.

The ESRB (video game ratings board in the US) is a private organization and does not enforce any sales practices on retailers.

I don't really look at the ratings personally anymore. I used to, mostly to judge how poorly my parents would react to purchases. But they don't care too much if I'm not flaunting M-rated games in front of my little brother.

I think I'd do a pretty good (har!) job at screening video games that my kids would be looking at. I'm a lot luckier than my parents in that regard, having grown up with videogames my entire life (I remember space invaders on an atari! ^_^).

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I don't think they should have the right to refuse service to people based on age. What they are selling is not even theirs. Where is this idea come from that one company makes a product, another sells it but then purposely starts denying it to a certain group of people (who happen to be the biggest purchasers of such product) and that is ok?

Are bartenders compelled to serve drinks to someone who's clearly had too much already? Furthermore, the last time I saw numbers, it's the 18-30 age bracket that purchases the most videogames, not younger children to whom the ratings actually apply.

It is still censorship in my opinion, and any from of censorship, corporate or government, should not be allowed.

Media should be forced to produce the rawest, most extreme versions of itself at all times? There are a multitude of (minor) self-censorships in all sorts of media. If a self-censored product will sell better, why not do so?

EDIT: Also, the people who rate games are kept secret from the public, so no accountability, which makes it even worse.

To quote the ESRB:

Who decides which rating a game should get?

Each ESRB rating is based on the consensus of at least three specially trained raters who view content based on numerous criteria. Raters must be adults, and typically have experience with children through prior work experience, education or by being parents or caregivers themselves. They rate games on a full-time basis, although they may be assisted by part-time raters when necessary. While they are not required to have advanced skills as computer and video game players (since their job is to review content and determine its age-appropriateness, not to assess how challenging or entertaining a particular game is to play), they do gain or further develop these abilities since they are also required, time-permitting, to play the final version of games (after their release) when they are not busy assigning ratings. To eliminate the risk of outside or industry influence, the identities of ESRB raters are kept confidential, and they are not permitted to have any ties to or connections with any individuals or entities in the computer/video game industry.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I remember saying based on age.

The principle is roughly the same; the bartender thinks alcohol poisoning his customers is bad for business; the retailer views selling AO games to kids as bad for business.

A producer/publisher can decide to release what ever they want, but don't tell me its ok for a T.V. station to be fined for having a soldier swear on camera in a friggen war zone or condemning Grand Theft Auto:San Andreas to an Adult Only rating (which automatically makes it be pulled off the shelves for any store that decides they won't sell AO games, which is all of them) because of having a minigame in it that the kids must alter the actual game code and know they are doing in order to see it.

The former example is presumably government censorship, of which I'm far less keen on (ignoring the whole bit about the government controlling the airwaves to begin with). As for the latter, the recent versions of GTA should probably be AO in general, regardless of the hot coffee mod. However, if you feel that retailers are wrong for pulling AO games, or if you feel that the ESRB is wrong in general, then support neither. Do not purchase from those retailers, and do not purchase games that comply with the ESRB. Simple as that.

That does not mean they are protected from influence. That just means that if they are influenced, the public can't do anything because they don't know who they are. Also, even if they are protected from outside influence, some of them could still be prejudiced due to their own beliefs.

What does the ESRB gain by unprofessional and biased ratings? Bad publicity. If it gets too bad, publishers will simply drop them as their rating board. There is bias in any human situation, but the ESRB has financial reasons to minimize it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Not really, in the first scenario the bartender is preventing the possibility of having allowed or even helped a man to kill himself, while in the second scenario the retailer is preventing a special interest group who wants all games to be their version of morally sound from being pissed at them.

Both are bad for business. QED

I would take your suggestion, if the ESRB was not the only rating company. Seeing as how they have a monopoly on the rating business, they are comfortable with doing anything they please, and if I am dissatisfied with how they are doing to the point of not wanting to support them, they have essentially forced me not to buy video games entirely anymore, which is a form of censorship, you will take what we give you or you can not have it at all.

There are plenty of games without ESRB ratings on them. Heck, I've even purchased one.

They have financial reasons to promote it, if a special interest group comes along and gives them a lot of money to make that immoral game AO in order to get it off the shelves.

Prove it.

And why don't you open your own ratings business, with different practices?

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Rhyfelwyr]

I have to keep taking my 10 year-old brother down to Gamestation to get his Gears of War 2 disk (18) cleaned, because even if he's buying it, it has to be me that hands over the money.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Prove...that ESRB could be getting funds from special interest groups? (Is that you are trying to say?)

Yeah. Is there any evidence to prove that the ESRB is adjusting ratings for cash? I mean, who is going to pay to have their rating increased?

And I would really want to, but I really don't know how to get one started.

A good place to start might be finding other people who are disgruntled with the ESRB.

EDIT: Also, looking at the game you showed me. It seems a like low quality, internet available only game. Internet does not count, because if you have your parents permission you can buy it online without having to worry about being denied even if it is rated (presumably because your parents gave you the credit card number to purchase it).

Low production value doesn't necessarily mean low quality. Furthermore, the internet certainly does count - There are plenty of games released through the internet and aren't effected by the ESRB - and that's my point. No one is putting a gun to developers' heads. Here's another developer/publisher that isn't ESRB rated, and has higher production vales (and critical acclaim in the indie strategy scene).

And you also just defeated your entire argument - ordering games online doesn't check for your age. Then it's simply a manner of parental involvement. Which I think is sort of the point of the ratings system in the first place.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Fixiwee]

I'm slipping back to the OP.
Like most of me befor have pointed out. It depends of the kid. It is essential that a kid realises the difference between the real world and violence on the pc. I remember not being allowed to play DOOM II when I was about 11, but at 15 I had my own pc and sure I played a lot of FPS. But by then I was able to see the difference.
Games are supposed to be fun.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post.

That's what we get from having you in the backroom!!

[Strike For The South]

Private business have the right to refuse service to anyone based on any arbitrary standard the decide to pursue. Hence the term "private"

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Strike For The South]

I prefer consumer protection against crap like that. Businesses have the right to disregard all safety measures hence the term private.

Safety measures do not equal who a business caters to.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...