Supreme Court to decide hte future of Video Games

[sodacat]

The MPAA's ratings are crazy and don't make the least bit of sense. Back in the beginning it was plenty sensible. G was OK for anyone to watch, PG is either for adults, or for teens that adults trust to understand the material, and R is porn. Then everything went to hell when they threw in PG-13. G became toy commercials, PG is for sexless chick-flicks, PG-13 is for most movies, except for those that cross an arbitrary amount of objectionable material, in which case they become R. Or NC-17 if they decide to show an erect penis or a female orgasm, although flaccid penises and male orgasms can be slotted into lower ratings.

Games are so much easier to decrypt. Imagine every game starting as E. If it has violence against humanoid targets and it's Teen. Blood and violence or explicit sexual situations and it's M (although it's way more of the first than the second). Violence against cartoon figures might bump it up to E10 (a silly rating, honestly, but I can kind of understand it). If a game is only edutainment it gets hit with EC to prevent six year olds from accidentally asking for it. AO only exists to prevent pornographic games from being made and sold in the mass market (pity).

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by FullMetalX

Actually, the M-Rating is the gaming equivalent of an R-Rating. M is the 17+ rating. It says so right on the box. M - Mature 17+.

EC - Early Childhood = G
E - Everyone = PG
E10 - Everyone 10+ = Low PG-13
T- Teen 13+ = High PG-13
M - Mature 17+ = R

Unless the MPAA immediately starts rating video games, the ratings for them aren't gonna change. Besides...the ESRB ratings make more sense.

Close. The original ratings letters the ESRB wanted were the MPAA ratings to make them align. Except for EC, they are essentially identical:
EC = no MPAA equivalent.
E = G (Everyone/General Audiences)
E10 = PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
T = PG-13 (13+)
M = R (17+)
AO = NC-17 (18+ because 17 is a tender age, apparently)

Originally Posted by sodacat

The MPAA's ratings are crazy and don't make the least bit of sense. Back in the beginning it was plenty sensible. G was OK for anyone to watch, PG is either for adults, or for teens that adults trust to understand the material, and R is porn.

They're about as sensible as the ESRB ratings. G = all, PG = no young kids, PG-13 = older kids, R = adults, NC-17 (X in the olden days) = porn. PG-13 came about in the 80s (Gremlins I think was the big catalyst) because there was too wide a gulf between PG and R. Gremlins didn't have a lot of sex, language and human violence and wasn't really an R, but the gremlin decapitations/microwaving, Stripe's death and the bar scene were a little much for the under-12 crowd.

Originally Posted by sodacat

Games are so much easier to decrypt. Imagine every game starting as E. If it has violence against humanoid targets and it's Teen. Blood and violence or explicit sexual situations and it's M (although it's way more of the first than the second). Violence against cartoon figures might bump it up to E10 (a silly rating, honestly, but I can kind of understand it). If a game is only edutainment it gets hit with EC to prevent six year olds from accidentally asking for it. AO only exists to prevent pornographic games from being made and sold in the mass market (pity).

Probably because games are a much more limited form of art where you can guess the amount of violence solely from the rating. From my brief search through my games ratings the other day, the only games I had that didn't have the word "violence" on the back were Guitar Hero and Rock Band. The movies "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle" and "Sex in the City" were both rated R for reasons that most video games would be rated AO for and both were relatively violence-free.

[tjlemke]

Originally Posted by sodacat

The MPAA's ratings are crazy and don't make the least bit of sense. Back in the beginning it was plenty sensible. G was OK for anyone to watch, PG is either for adults, or for teens that adults trust to understand the material, and R is porn. Then everything went to hell when they threw in PG-13. G became toy commercials, PG is for sexless chick-flicks, PG-13 is for most movies, except for those that cross an arbitrary amount of objectionable material, in which case they become R. Or NC-17 if they decide to show an erect penis or a female orgasm, although flaccid penises and male orgasms can be slotted into lower ratings.

I don't know what the hell you were smoking earlier but I find it makes perfect (or near) sense. I understand for the most part the difference I will find between a PG and PG-13 or a R movie. They improved, not de-evolved as you seem to think.

AO only exists to prevent pornographic games from being made and sold in the mass market (pity).

:takes 5 cautious steps backword:

Ummm...whatever floats your boat? No, I'll just settle with your fucking weird. Yes, that's the appropriate phrase you say to freaks.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by tjlemke

:takes 5 cautious steps backword:

Ummm...whatever floats your boat? No, I'll just settle with your fucking weird. Yes, that's the appropriate phrase you say to freaks.

Think we should let him know that he's on a fetish forum?

[TF-Viewer]

Originally Posted by Drachen

Think we should let him know that he's on a fetish forum?

That information wouldn't affect someone that deep in denial, they'd hear what they want to hear.


But seriously, he should try out a hentai dating sim or something before passing judgment on anyone.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by kapol

I'm just going to post this here as I feel it accurately sums up how I feel the trial went as well: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/arti...Games-on-Trial

Originally Posted by The Escapist

If California wins the case, similar laws are certain to spring up in other states, and the chilling effect on the development of videogames for adults could be profound. In order to avoid huge liability, major game retailers, such as GameStop and Walmart, would have to restructure their entire business model to ensure minors are not sold games. These businesses may decide that it is more cost effective to not stock or sell these games all together! In addition, businesses with an online distribution model are even less able to ensure the purchaser of the game is not a minor. They might be required to geo-target any state with such a law to forbid any mature games being sold there as the only way to avoid liability under this bill.

What utter, unmitigated bullshit. Gamestop and Wal-Mart ALREADY check IDs for M rated titles. Online businesses need to determine where a purchaser is because they need to deal with taxation. An online store must collect local sales tax on any purchase made within a state where they have a physical presence. Even if credit cards weren't the obvious method for age verification, there's too much money on the table to just give up the sales. Other solutions will be presented. When the Communications Decency Act was passed, companies like Adult Check took up the verification slack. Then that law was (thankfully) overturned.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by kapol

Yes, but at the moment Wal-Mart isn't facing a huge fine or any real legal issues if they sell the game to a minor, which is what they'd be facing with any game covered by this act.

Right, and no convenience store sells beer because no convenience store could face the legal issues of selling beer to someone underage. If the local bodega can do it, Wal-Mart can do it.

Originally Posted by kapol

imagine a game like Bioshock had all blood removed, all human characters replaced with something non-human, and the entire 'little sister' concept taken out (after all, it gives the player the option to kill little girls). They'd have to think very strongly about each of those items before making a decision...[/URL]

This is already being done right this moment. Games and edgy concepts (particularly sexual ones) are being censored right now by game designers who are targeting T or M and don't want to have the ESRB give them too high a rating or by the ESRB giving the game too high a rating and telling them to cut X, Y and Z to get the rating down to a T or M rating.

This trial is important, but the reasons the game industry and the retail industry give are complete bullshit. They simply don't want to give up control. I'd prefer them to have control as well, but not for any of the above nonsense.

[FullMetalX]

Here's what you don't understand. This law essentially classifies certain games as being as bad as pornography. Sure, there are stores that sell porn...but when was the last time you saw them selling porn at a big chain like Wal-Mart?

Beer and alcohol are one thing...drinks. We're talking about what's obscene. Alcohol isn't considered obscene, so stores will sell it. Make something obscene, however...well, just wait and see how quick stores are to drop it.

[sodacat]

Originally Posted by tjlemke

:takes 5 cautious steps backword:

Ummm...whatever floats your boat? No, I'll just settle with your fucking weird. Yes, that's the appropriate phrase you say to freaks.

Yeah, I rewrote that sentence a few times but I guess it still didn't come out right. My point is that sexual content in games beyond cheese cake is avoided like the plague because if anyone did attempt to make a game with mature sexual situations they'd get slapped with an AO.

[Clickme]

How many games really NEED Mature Sexual Situations anyways? I mean other than Eroge, what's the point?

[DanTails]

Originally Posted by FullMetalX

Here's what you don't understand. This law essentially classifies certain games as being as bad as pornography. Sure, there are stores that sell porn...but when was the last time you saw them selling porn at a big chain like Wal-Mart?

The big question is...is it?

I mean, in the US, we're very liberal with extreme violence and very conservative with sexuality. We have games featuring goring out ribs and ripping off limbs to beat people with them, yet if we see a nipple, we'll freak. And don't get me started on a penis.

I do think the ESRB is way too lenient with how it gives out ratings. I can't think of a time the "This is way too violent for an M" was crossed. Closest I can think of was Manhunt 2 having something being shoved up a man's ass, and even then, that was probably more sexual then violent.

Granted, I don't want a ban or something, but I would not mind the needless violence being toned down a bit, or some new rating like this being added or something. =/

[Clickme]

@DanTail: That Manhunt game WAS reclassified as AO.