Welcome to Coffee Talk! Let’s start off the day by discussing whatever is on your (nerd chic) mind. Every morning I’ll kick off a discussion and I’m counting on you to participate in it. If you’re not feelin’ my topic, feel free to start a chat with your fellow readers and see where it takes you. Whether you’re talking about videogames, the Women’s World Cup finals, NBA players signing with European teams, or Jennifer Lopez divorcing Marc Anthony, Coffee Talk is the place to do it.
Game ratings are a hot-button topic and I’m not really sure why. I think the ESRB does an outstanding job rating games — much better and more consistent than how the MPAA handles movies. However, that’s not what I wanted to talk to you about today. Do you think about game ratings before you’ve purchased a game or after you’ve played it?
There are several times when I’ve watched a PG-13 movie and thought, “This would have been way better as an R-rated movie.” Have you ever felt that way about a game? Are there any games you played where you wished the publisher and/or developer pushed the envelope more? Are there any T-rated games that you wish were M-rated? I’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter!
Mortal Kombat vs DC universe springs to mind immediately
I thought Brutal Legend could use a few F bombs and nudity considering the content.
I really don't care for PG-13 comedies. I prefer the hard R rating.
I feel like that with movies all the time, but I don't think I ever said that about a game. Other than Final Fantasy, Portal, and Family Game Night, all the games I have on disc are rated M.
So J-Lo let go of Marc Anthony? Anyone know why?
She didn't like the fact that he looks more and more like Skeletor with each passing year.
That game couldn't be too violent because of the DC characters.
whats the point of making a pg-13 MK game?
that game almost literally killed a 15 year franchise
I hear the new MK game is pretty good at least.
The only time I ever see a game rating is when a friend's kids come over and want to play games. Then I start checking them and I am was surprised the first time I checked that I had maybe 6 games that weren't rated M.
With movies I always wonder how they get away with such low ratings. A rated R movie from the 70s would be PG now days.
There was no PG-13 until Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
The MPAA was going to give it an R which Speilberg knew would hurt the attendance to theaters (kids), so he pulled some strings and Temple of Doom was the first middle of the road PG-13 movie.
So… You're right. Alot of R movies back then would be PG or PG-13 now.
Wow I didn't know that. Added to my trivia knowledge.
I tend to not care and think the issue is over-blown. Here is an abridged list of games I played and enjoyed in the past year that weren't rated M:
Batman: AA
Uncharted 2
DC Universe
Burnout Paradise
NHL 11
Infamous
Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2
Tetris
The list goes on…
See… I think games are art. A song doesn't have to be in the contextual stream of GG Allin or Gwar for me to recognize the art and craftsmanship of the song. A movie doesn't have to be Ichi the Killer for me to enjoy it.
It's a slippery slope too. I have a friend who is at the point where the only movies he enjoys are either exploitation horror flicks or porn. Do you have any idea how hard it is to talk to that guy about movies?
I look at ratings all the time, but it's really only so I know what I can play in front of my son and what I can't. Plus he's getting to that point where he want to try everything I buy, so I have to be like, "This game is rated M. That means you have to be 17. How old are You?"
Out of curiosity, when your son is 16 will you let him play CoD 20 or Halo 117? or will he have to wait until he is 17? I understand the "This game is rated M. That means you have to be 17. How old are You?" working right now, but I was just curious whether the actual content of the game is something you (will) take in to consideration for your kids?
I play some T games in front of him already dependent on the content. I'll even play some M games, but usually with my headphones on so he doesn't pick up the random F-Bombs, so long as I know there's no sexual content, or the violence isn't explicitly graphic. (i.e.: God of War and GTA are right out). Frankly, Halo only gets the M rating because of the blood and the fact that it was a game about a bunch of fanatically religious aliens that came out right after 9/11, as it's not really that bad considering.
But as he's only 4 1/2, it's easier to explain to him that he's not old enough to play something because of the rating on the box then to try and explain to him why daddy's playing with a nekid corpse in L.A. Noire.
Oh like I said I completely agree with your use of the rating system considering his young age. I was just curious about later. There are plenty of parents out there who are strict with ratings without knowing the actual content. With your example of Halo, not everyone knows that back story but parents will still not let their kids play it simply because it has an M rating. Same could be said of games rated T at a younger age, or R rated and pg-13 rated movies.
The difference is that I'm a gamer and I actually understand the ratings and the content.
That being said, the ESRB and the games industry in general could do a better job of reaching out to parents to let them know what tools are at their disposal to make better decisions for their kids.. I bet you 96% of all parents of young gamers have no idea there's an ap that lets them take a picture of a coverbox and learn exactly what the game's rating is for.
The ESRB does a much better job than the MPAA in terms of outreach and education.
True, but then again what outreach does the MPAA really need to do? Everyone knows the difference between R and PG already. Outside of our circles of gaming friends, how many people know the difference between a T and an M?
Couldn't disagree more. The MPAA doesn't even know the difference. The ratings are horribly inconsistent and many directors feel that the choices are arbitrary. Look at the South Park movie for example. They were told to tone it down by the MPAA, but actually made the content stronger and still got approval. The latest Harry Potter movie is another example. A lot of people felt that that the death and violence should have gotten a stronger rating.
Fairly certain that we could all disagree with a rating that some film or game has been given. I'd argue that the ESRB is more conservative with their labeling and the MPAA tends to let more stuff go. But the point was that the average consumer knows the difference between what the MPAA ratings should mean and the ESRB ratings should mean since more people watch movies.
Not buying your argument simply because the MPAA does a poor and inconsistent job. The MPAA ratings are more well known because they're older and more mainstream, but the ratings themselves are a joke and consumers just accept the system. You're saying everyone knows the difference between PG and PG-13? No way.
I don't recall arguing that the MPAA does a good job. But I know if we put 100 random adults in a room and asked the to explain both the MPAA ratings and the ESRB ratings, at least half the people in the room would go, "What's the ESRB?"
You said that "everyone" knows what the ratings means. If that were true then the MPAA would be doing a good job. I think you're completely wrong. I also think it's a bad example to use 100 random adults. That's kind of dumb. 100 moviegoers and 100 game buyers would be much better.
All I know is I never have random people ask me what the ratings mean when I go to the movies. I can't go into a GameStop without someone asking me what the ratings mean. You're response to my comment that the ESRB could do a better job of education and outreach is a perfect example of the arrogance of the gaming industry. "Well, we're doing a better job then they are, so we're doing enough doesn't really fly when no one's trying to ban movies due to a lack of understanding of the content.
That has nothing to do with arrogance. That's a poor, poor assumption on your part. At every major videogame retailer, I see ESRB ratings and definitions clearly displayed. If you can't go into a GameStop without someone asking you about the ratings then the people that shop at your GameStop can't read. The ratings are there and the descriptors are clearly defined. Compare that to a movie theater where the ratings get a small display and the definitions are nebulous.
Really? Cause I all I see at all the local game stores is a couple pamphlets sitting on the counter, where as the local movie theaters all have the ratings up along with all of the coming soon posters. So maybe that's just your theater.
Also, there's nothing nebulous about either of these.:
http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp#rat…
http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-mean…
Again, poor examples. The ratings and full descriptors are on every game. You see why the game got the rating it did right on the box. What do you see when you're in line for the movies? At most modern theaters you see the rating next to the title. You're saying people are supposed to look at the posters and read the descriptors before waiting in line? And like I said before, the MPAA standards are vague and can easily be skirted.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but no….they have large posters up with the coming soon posters that explains the rating system. Basically there's always 1 or 2 poster slots that explain the MPAA ratings. Where as there usually about 2 pamplets stashed in a far corner of the local GameStops.
Also, if you look at the back of any DVD it tells you exactly what the ratings is for right below the rating in the same manner as the ESRB labels the backs of games.
Regardless of all this, the point I was trying to make initially had nothing to do with the MPAA and just that I felt like the ESRB could stand to do a better job, no matter how good the numbers say they're doing they still have a perception they need to fight. And this "but we're already doing all this…." attitude doesn't help them any..
What information do you see on a game box? What information do you see on a movie poster? It's clear that the ESRB provides more useful information than the MPAA. Saying that ESRB could stand to do a better job is ignorance on your part.
The same ratings information that's on the DVD box is on the movie poster if you're willing to look. And saying they can't do better simple because of your opinion of the MPAA is arrogance on your part. Clearly the ESRB and the games industry in general have a public perception problem (unfounded as it may be) and more people in or around the industry don't recognize that and insist they they do an even better job to work to fix it then the problem won't go away anytime soon.
How is it arrogance on my part? That's honestly one of the silliest things I've heard all year. Why should I be arrogant about the ESRB? Are they paying me? One organization is simply doing a better job than the other, but for whatever reason you can't admit that.
Let's look at one of your examples. My Blu-ray of The Dark Knight is rated PG-13. The content descriptors are "intense sequences of violence and some menace". My copy of Batman: Arkyham Asylum is rated Teen. The content descriptors are "Alcohol and Tobacco Reference, Blood, Mild Language, Suggestive Themes, Violence".
Which set of information is more useful to the buyer?
Both are plenty helpful actually. Maybe you read that as nebulous, but I see "Intense sequences of Violence" and I get the picture just fine.
Regardless, the fact that you seem to think that I'm ignorant because I think the ESRB could stand to improve it's outreach and education programs is quite ignorant in itself. You're basically saying that because "the MPAA is shit," the ESRB can't stand to improve. That's ridiculous.
That's not what I'm saying at all. You're having problems interpreting.
Also nice that "some menace" is a terribly meaningful descriptor.
No, you're having problems interpreting. You seem to think that something can only be better than something else, and don't understand that doesn't have to relate in any way to somehting else in order to be better than it already is.
Again, not what I was saying at all.
Let me rephrase: There's nothing any less nebulous in one of these than in the other.
That would mean something if the MPAA actually used that information. The ESRB uses more definitions in the space it has.
Pretty sure that "Violence and Sexual Content" is pretty clear no matter what the media is.
Again, show me a movie poster that has more accurate descriptors than what's on the back of a videogame box.
I fail to see how a discussion of "either/or" with regards to the MPAA and ESRB addresses the fact that a significant enough group of people don't understand the game ratings system. if you want to rail against the MPAA, be my guest. But the ESRB could stand to do more to help fight the industry's public perception problem.
I fail to see any kind of point you're making. You keep saying the ESRB could be doing better. Better than what? It does better than its counterparts in movies and music. Why do you games to a higher standard?
Why can't something strive to be better than it already is without regard for something to compare it to? That's the part of your argument that I don't get. What does the MPAA's current lackluster ability to do it's job have to do with the ESRB at all? Why can't the ESRB strive to be better than it already is?
I'd agree. The ESRB does a better job. The MPAA is up the academy's ass and too concerned with selling movie tickets than evolving.
Organizations that do the similar things help define each other. You should know that as a critic.
The ESRB has improved greatly in the last 10 years. It's a young organization in a young business. It's continuing to improve. I'm not sure why you don't acknowledge that aside from not being familiar with the group's work.
What the fuck are you talking about Ray? I never failed to acknowledge their work. I simply think they could stand to do more. If you disagree, if you think the status quo is perfect the way it is with games being marginalized by the media and the public, with a shit ton of parents not understanding the ratings system, then fine. I think you';re wrong, but fine. But don't insult me like I don't know what I'm talking about simply because I disagree with your narrow view that everything has to be compared to something else in order to warrant being improved upon.
Looks like someone needs a time out. I never insulted you. Calling someone ignorant is not an insult. I think you lack information. I also think you need to back off if you can't make a point without cursing.
I don't think I'm having trouble making a point at all. I think I was being quite clear in my opinion and you want to keep bringing it back to a pissing contest between the ESRB and MPAA…as if the MPAA has anything to do with the games industry's public perception problem and the fairly widespread lack of understanding that the mainstream media general public has with the games industry in general. The fact that they are the best at policing themselves means relatively nothing if the only ones who know that are the ones who read gaming websites. The ESRB is the best tool the industry has to do outreach and education. For example: running some ads like the old Tiger Woods and Derek Jeter TV spots during something other than traditional "18-35 male programming" might be a start if you want to improve public perception that the industry is actually policing itself. That's just one example of something they could improve upon.
So the ESRB needs to start running ads with expensive talent? That's your idea of doing better? Again, I don't think you understand what you're talking about. How can the ESRB pay for an expensive ad, let alone any mainstream ad.
I don't care about the talent level. I'm giving an example of something they used to do and I haven't seen them run anything in about 5 years…and when they did it was during the traditional 18-35 male programming….you know, people who already know.
You expect a non-profit group to run commercials to demographics that may or may not by the products it serves? That's hardly reasonable.
Neither is expecting the back of the box to solve the industry's perception problem.
You're the only one talking about this imagined problem. This is another case where I think you lack perspective and information. Gaming is a relatively young business. Similar to popular movies and music, it will take time to become accepted and it's clearly a generationalissue. It's hardly the ESRB's role to fight imaginary issues that won't exist in 20 years.
Ratings on games is something I notice, but rarely care about for myself. I also have the same thoughts that a lot of pg-13 movies would be better if they were rater R instead. The MPAA is completely inconsistent, much worse the ESRB, but video games have a worse perception than movies or tv shows. We've been taught to think like this, and accept this thinking since we were little—our parents in many cases because they were so unfamiliar with video games, or perceive them differently since the player is in control of the action. I know people who will insist that a T-rated video game is worse than an R-rated movie because when someone dies in the game it's because you the player pulled the trigger—but they have no argument past that and they don't have solid reasoning for why that is worse.
Like Slicky stated, I don't think about game ratings much until someone else wants to play games with me. I completely forgot that L4D was rated M until my 13 year old brother and I were halfway through the first level. My problem with the rating system is that it is so black and white (E, T, or M) but the content is in such a gray area in comparison. Dead Space 2 is much more violent than Halo: Reach could ever dream to be, but they both have the same exact rating. It doesn't matter what the rating is for, because most people will never use that as a comparison, and even then there are only a handful of reasons for a rating (of which I'm sure there are several of the same on Dead Space 2 and Halo: Reach). Once we look at gameplay footage though I think we could agree that they are two different levels of violence and that perhaps Dead Space 2 would be worse for my 14 year old brother to play than Halo: Reach.
I still do not really criticize ESRB because I think everyone else who in their misguided opinions feel that the MPAA is a better watchdog is already gunning for the ESRB, and while I may draw some issues with them like what I just mentioned, they don't need another criticizing voice from a gamer right now.
See I have played games with younger kids and had no problem with M rated content.
After thinking about this today, it makes me upset that console makers refuse to allow an AO game on their machines. I don't know what would be in an AO only game that isn't already in an M game except for pr0n, but as an adult I'd like to not have my choices restricted. After all, I bought the machine and the TV.
MPAA vs ESRB, I have to hate on MPAA considerably more due to their political crap. I think both tend to just rate IPs either on past trends or how they feel. I really think too much emphasis is put on these ratings systems anyway. The morality police in this country never ceases to amaze me. I do realize their utility in the instances mentioned in this thread, but anything further really turns me off.
There aren't many AO-rated titles. The ones that are received the rating for sexual content. I wonder how similar titles are handled in Europe and Asia. It seems like a very American thing. Hell, even Canada is more accepting of sexual content.
I would have to agree, every AO game I've ever heard of has been pr0n related, but I would love to see what an unrestricted AO video game would be like. This raises the question in my mind though, could we ever get an AO violent game? I think that something along the lines of Dead Space 2 pushed the limits pretty far in regards to violence purely for the sake of violence, but that still just got an M rating. Would the ESRB ever give an AO rating for violence, or when we speak of adult content do we just mean sex, nudity and degradation?
Im thinking maybe some hard core drug use. I'd bet Heroin Hero would be AO and it doesn't have a boob in it :)
Heroin motion gaming?!?
Yeah I don't see Sony or MS showing that off at E3. Though that would be funny as hell. I bet MS would now allow a studio like Rockstar to put out GTA using Kinect if your guy can beat up hookers with motion controls. I mean, if they are so stick up their ass about nudity I can't see them agreeing to that.
Achievement Unlocked: Caught the Dragon in Heroin Hero
100 Gamerscore
that's true, hardcore drug use could be grounds for an AO game, but I feel like in comparison with everything that has already received an M rating all of the reasons would be due to excessive drug use for the sake of excessive drug use, violence and sex for the same reasons. As much as I would love to see an AO game, I feel like it might go a little too far.