Violence in gaming and the senate.

[Dubh Aingeal]

"During the recent Senate hearings on video game violence, one expert claimed that the ESRB underrated violent games. They went on to say that Pacman was 64% violent. To some, this means you shouldn't play Pacman; to others, it highlights what's wrong with Senate hearings. Whether a game is violent or not depends on how you classify violence, and the ESRB has the job of doing just that. They're not regulated by the government, they let the game makers recommend their own ratings, and don't play every game they rate. Is the ESRB to be trusted?"

[Homicidalheathen]

Oh god please......don't let them take the violence out of vids. My kids might turn on me......it is their only safe outlet!!!

[n0Mad]

Oh god please......don't let them take the violence out of vids.  My kids might turn on me......it is their only safe outlet!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. As long as the kids understand the difference between fantasy and reality (which should come from the parents, not the government or other organizations) then video games are a great escape where you can shoot the hell out of cops and such. Take that away and I've gotta get my release somewhere so what's left but to do it for real.

[BrassFusion]

So the ESRB has a purpose: they're providing a line of defense between kids and very violent video games. If parents think their kid is mature enough to handle GTA: San Andreas (Without the coffee mod of course, a little sex is SUPER worse than violence ), the parents can buy the game for their kid.

Now, it's true that some parents are lazy and ignorant and won't allow their kids to play any game or see any movie above a particular rating. Putting their complete trust in the ESRB and MPAA, in essence... Morons. Nothing we can do about them.

Yeah, the ESRB could be a little bit more streamlined, but what is our nation really losing as a result of conservative and ignorant video game ratings? AO labels and M labels will still enjoy sales, especially as the Nintendo generation ages.

[Amerist]

One of the real absurd things about the ESRB, and especially the debates surrounding their rating of GTA and the like, is that subtle one-year difference between M and AO.

GTA for a while was rated M (17+) and yet, for some weird reason, this wasn't good enough because people were jumping up and down about how they felt upset and angry that their 13-year-old was playing the game and could get into the Hot Coffee mod and see "the pixels of moral decay." (Thank thee Maddox.)

Why exactly are people looking at a game rated M. Seeing that the rating is marked: "MATURE - Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language." And then start freaking out saying "my 13-year-old child..."

Some of these people are just not actually paying attention to the ESRB ratings. Which, in my mind, are a poor substitute for actually sitting down and trying out the game. They give people an excellent snap-judgment. Chances are very good a M rated game is not what most people want their young teen playing?

The rating debate is really meaningless if it only covers M and AO games. If a federal commission can sit down and show some E and T games that should really have been M, then maybe they have something.

The ESRB's rating practices are kind of stupid, but I haven't seen them grossly inappropriately rate a game.

And my final boggle at this kafuffle:

I realize that this odd, one-year-difference between M and AO is marketing oriented; that not many people really believe that their kids suddenly change from immature brats who can't handle non-minor content between 17 and 18. That it's really stores are terrified of stocking AO content because of the stigma surrounding AO games puts them on the same level as pornography...?