181 replies to this topic

[Juni Ori]

That I call tough luck... Well, be patient, you'll get it one day. Btw, do they really check too well people's ages? At least here it isn't any wonder if personnel in store don't bother even to check people's ages, especially in cases where the rating is below 18, when most don't have ID's.

[Potatoe]

They ask for ID? I thought it was just an age recommendation.

[Juni Ori]

Hmm... About games I'm not sure at all, but in general it seems like every rating is treated like a recommendation.

[Potatoe]

Juni Ori, on Sep 2 2007, 12:37 PM, said:

Hmm... About games I'm not sure at all, but in general it seems like every rating is treated like a recommendation.

They are recommendations in games.

[Doubler]

I'm sure it differs between countries, but as far as I know where I live, there's no laws limiting video game sales to certain ages (as indicated by some officialy recognized institution). That would make the rating (pegi, here) a recommendation, nothing more. Good thing too.

[DeathDude]

It used to be almost considered a recommendation here in North America for the ratings, now its you have to enforce it. In fact, one of my friends who works at Walmart, says when you sell an M rated game, the cash register's computer screen will ask, did the buyer have ID if they look under 17? So if they don't they can't sell the game, plus in other places, if you do sell an M-rated game to someone under 17 and the company finds out,  boom your fired.

Its a good step to see, and in a recent poll the numbers of people under 17 getting M rated games has dropped a fair amount, compared to a few years ago, so its working.

[Potatoe]

DeathDude, on Sep 2 2007, 07:12 PM, said:

It used to be almost considered a recommendation here in North America for the ratings, now its you have to enforce it. In fact, one of my friends who works at Walmart, says when you sell an M rated game, the cash register's computer screen will ask, did the buyer have ID if they look under 17? So if they don't they can't sell the game, plus in other places, if you do sell an M-rated game to someone under 17 and the company finds out,  boom your fired.

Its a good step to see, and in a recent poll the numbers of people under 17 getting M rated games has dropped a fair amount, compared to a few years ago, so its working.

That sucks. Most of the M rated games aren't even bad(Half Life, Half Life 2, Halo, Far Cry).

[DeathDude]

Yeahs but what about GTA, Manhunt, Scarface and others? Yeah in the grand picture some aren't that bad to people who have seen a lot of games in their lifetime, (like myself) but keep in mind when you have a grownup buying an M rated game for a six year old, thats when it can get problematic.

The reason there is much harder enforcement now, is to encourage parents to start monitoring the games that their kids play, without just blindly buying them, which is the first step in all this of it working, if parent groups want to complain about all the violence and whatnot in games, maybe they should be paying more attention to what little billy is playing first and who bought it for him, before they start pointing fingers.

[Doubler]

I don't like the idea of another heavily political institution having so much content-control, really. It's a sort of authority they as a rating board can not claim, and can easily abuse. It isn't good for the industry either.

No, I don't think it's a good step to take.

Quote

to encourage parents to start monitoring the games that their kids play

That's redicilous. If anything it encourages parents to lay back as big daddy will take care of their kids. Moreover, this kind of enforcement gives the parents (or anybody else) exactly more scapegoats to point fingers at...
And what fingers are we talking about anyway? The 'little Billy's playing video games I don't approve of!' or the 'little Billy's messed up by playing games!' fingers?

The first group of fingers is not suited as a basis for legislation or a universal 'hard enforcement', the second group of fingers is usually unfounded and often consist of completely ludicrous and cheap attempts at providing a scapegoat for a bigger problem. Be it with little Billy, the parents, something as lofty and abstract like 'society' or whatever.

[DeathDude]

The ESRB the ratings board has never had any power anywhere if you think about it, (only for games that wish to be released in the market, your game is not rated, good luck finding a place that will sell it and talking in North America as I do not know how the policy is other places) this is all politics at work, and with the recent shift in attitude thats the big reason retailers are now getting the pressure to start enforcing the law. Its not going to catch everyone, if a kid takes their parent anyway to buy a game, that will do nothing, but it merely stops the younger kids (talking like from say 13 and on) from getting this game via buying themselves.

This is a much grander plans for the industry to at least say, well at least we have methods in place to stop gamers under 17 from getting M rated games, then it was in the past, where there was none if any policing on games. So if somehow a parent wants to complain about why so and so game is so violent, the trail can lead now to who bought the game and where and not all the blame will go to the industry. (This is obviously how the industry sees it and its not fool proof, and considering how the news media loves to jump on any video game controversy)

[Doubler]

Quote

The ESRB the ratings board has never had any power anywhere if you think about it, (only for games that wish to be released in the market, your game is not rated, good luck finding a place that will sell it and talking in North America as I do not know how the policy is other places)

As if that doesn't count as a veto
No power, sure. Along with the stores that won't pack M-rated games. No power at all.
You don't need to be able to directly tell people what to do to have power.

And yes, its different elsewhere in the world. Not that that matters, since north-America has utter priority for many studios or publishers. Its not that we're likely to escape the north-American policies on gaming, simply because of the huge influence that has on the production of games.

Quote

this is all politics at work

This is all petty local politics at work, bad for the industry all over the planet. I don't see why having politics involved so deeply in content is a good thing anyway. Politics involve goals that have nothing to do with the issue in question.
Besides it will only lead to further sensorship, either directly or indirectly (remember, you don't need to be able to directly tell people what to do to have power ).

Quote

it merely stops the younger kids (talking like from say 13 and on) from getting this game via buying themselves.

Yeah, right. Like you said, that doesn't work. It doesn't work with alcohol, it doesn't work with tobacco, you can be sure this won't work with games
But that could be forgiven if it could actually be beneficial in some way. Yet even if it works its not really doing anything good as far as I can see. Those ratings don't mean enough for that.

Quote

at least we have methods in place to stop gamers under 17 from getting M rated games

How is this beneficial? Why should we celebrate this? What does that rating really mean? Is it worth the increased political take in games all across the board?

Anyway, the blame will always be in part at the industry. Only now the blame will also go to the poor sap who sold the game to Billy. Or the poor sap who bought it and then gave it to Billy. Or both poor saps. Or whoever. Never to the parents themselves who should be the ones controlling Billy's gaming, if they want it policed that badly. Particularly with games it are their own personal values at stake, that are rarely interesting for society as a whole. Does that concern the rest of the world so badly?
Again, think about what blame or complaint we're talking about. It doesn't add up.

[DeathDude]

I agree its bad for the industry as a whole, I never implied this sort of politics strategizing was good (and if I did then my bad), I was merely pointing out what this has caused to happen as a result, its becoming more stricter, but again this can only lead so far. Some politicians in the states believe the ESRB has no real enforcement policy, so what do they do, make their own gaming laws. Luckily the ESA has pretty much defeated every single law that has tried to be enforced, so its good to see that happening, prevent the government from going too far.

Some industry pundits are mostly praising it, so to really say to the government, look our ESRB ratings are working, and with the pressure we have put on retailers (via ESA or some other way) our ratings do work and your laws that you try to draw up are not needed, so back off.

Quote

Anyway, the blame will always be in part at the industry. Only now the blame will also go to the poor sap who sold the game to Billy. Or the poor sap who bought it and then gave it to Billy. Or both poor saps. Or whoever. Never to the parents themselves who should be the ones controlling Billy's gaming, if they want it policed that badly. Particularly with games it are their own personal values at stake, that are rarely interesting for society as a whole. Does that concern the rest of the world so badly?
Again, think about what blame or complaint we're talking about. It doesn't add up.

That’s my point the parents should be the ones policing the games, not the industry or government, the problem always lies in the news media getting a story about say the hot coffee mod in gta san andreas, or the extremeness back in the day of Mortal Kombat and bam it becomes huge news. The blame will never go away, even if new methods are developed but hopefully by then the blame will finally be recognized on the parents not on the industry for certain games.

[Blood-Pigggy]

ESRB is the least of the industry's problems.

It's moving too fast for its own good and it's crapping on our wallets and the quality of the games we get.

The demand for better technology and graphics is on from the meatheads who make up the largest majority of the gaming industry.
Stupid frat boys and butt headed teenage kids with pimply faces and arms the width of a twig playing Halo for like twenty hours straight.

Might as well put a gun to every industry leader's head and pull the trigger so we can start over from scratch and gradually advance this dying industry.

[Potatoe]

Blood-Pigggy, on Sep 4 2007, 01:37 AM, said:

ESRB is the least of the industry's problems.

It's moving too fast for its own good and it's crapping on our wallets and the quality of the games we get.

The demand for better technology and graphics is on from the meatheads who make up the largest majority of the gaming industry.
Stupid frat boys and butt headed teenage kids with pimply faces and arms the width of a twig playing Halo for like twenty hours straight.

Might as well put a gun to every industry leader's head and pull the trigger so we can start over from scratch and gradually advance this dying industry.

Even though games are being sold more and more?

[Sean]

Sales don't directly reflect the prosperity of the industry as a whole...

However, I'll be cautious to call the industry a dieing one. Changing yes... dieing not so much. I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced the industry is going the 'right' way from the consumer's perspective. If you look at it with corporate eyes I'm sure you'd be much happier with the way things are going. It's an ever-expanding, rapidly developing cash machine. The only problem, is the changing attitude towards the gaming market and the motivation behind the game's being made.

Whereas before the market was somewhat of a niche, and titles were developed on a smaller more personal scale it was easier for devolopers to innovate and try something new. The financial pressures were much less. I find today, we're seeing developers take a much more cautious approach when trying new things. Generally they try something that expands on a well proven formula and dabble in something different and gradually over time (through various titles and companies) we're given something completely new at the end of all of this. Whereas before a single title brought MORE change in one go.

I see that as today's problem. By the time true innovation has arrived we've already seen it being baked in the form of various other projects in the past. The sugar jar just ain't as sweet if you know what to expect

Edit: Any chance we could have this discussion split into a seperate thread? That way I'll feel less like an off-topic spammer hehe.