Oh come on. It's the idea of it more than anything that is what makes the rating so high. It doesn't look gross at all. It's just that the idea of some guy repeatedly stabbing another guy to death is bad. But uhm, I'm 17, I've been playing these video games all my life, and I turned out pretty fine... I think...

Personally, I'm completely convinced it deserved the Adults Only rating. However, I consider it a failing of the ESRB to lump pornography and violence into the same "adults only" boat. Go to your local department store and pick up copies of The Departed, Saw, Saw II, A History of Violence, Reservoir Dogs, etc. There's no question that these movies are extremely gory and intended for adults only. Now go pick up a copy of Debbie Does Dallas. There's no question that that movie is extremely pornographic and intended for adults only. Oh, wait, you can't buy that last one: the store doesn't sell pornographic products.

The motion picture industry has two separate ratings for these things -- R and X -- so why doesn't the video game industry? Because the video game industry is still discriminated against. Stores refuse to sell Adults Only products because they don't want pornography in their shops. They claim they don't want violence in their shops either, but if you can find the above movies, then they're walking talking hypocrites.

When I proposed the Adult Sexual and Adult Violent ratings to ESRB, they fell on deaf ears, but if we can get more people to talk about it, maybe they'll take notice.

the video game industry hasnt been around as long is why it is always the target. AO should have things where the younger teens shouldn't see it legally but with the ESRB its ratings seem to be flawed its just like the movie ratings where r is 17 then there is NC-17 which is the same the differnce between M and AO is just one year and the rating should be removed all together on games.

I feel that the AO rtaing should be used also but I also feel that games should be rereated over time. Mortal Kombat one for instance, is STILL rated M when it clearly isn't even on the same level as the edited version of Manhunt 2.

Jtgibson wrote:

Stores refuse to sell Adults Only products because they don't want pornography in their shops. They claim they don't want violence in their shops either, but if you can find the above movies, then they're walking talking hypocrites.

Sex starts wars; violence ends wars. Isn't ending a war better than starting one?

Trunks Master wrote:
I've seen kids that couldn't even be 10 and they bought the first man hunt gta games and the people working there know the game is for that little kid but they will still sell it to the parent because they only care about the sale

Either way, it's not up to the sales clerk to decide what game is for the kid. It's the parents!

Then the problem is uneducated parents, not the existence of a rating system.

Spuzzy: I looked it up one time, I'm fairly sure X is not a real rating.

I have no problem with sex and violence being combined, it just shows the problems with taboos. Watching two people having sex is rated as worse then watching one person kill another. Anyone else see a problem with that?

Some stores might be willing to carry AO games, but Wal-Mart isn't, and they're an absolutely huge retailer.

Well, it is the stores choice as to what they carry. Although it may be a death sentence to get the AO rating, it's as much of a problem with consumers not alerting their favorite retail store that they want the AO option as anything. There are no laws saying that a store can't sell AO games, or even unrated ones. I love the fact that the game industry has done a wonderful job of rating it's own content(the ESRB is not run by the government, nor is it financed by them, or endorsed), but the system needs some work.

There is absolutely nothing stopping me from selling a game that is not rated, I would just not be able to get it into the major retailers. That's fine by me. These companies made a choice to require ratings before they would sell a game, and I highly respect that! It shows that profits aren't always #1 on their list.

In fact, I do believe Crispy is selling an unrated game right now. Granted, it isn't unrated because he fears a bad rating, but rather, it isn't needed for his distribution method.

I also think listing things like "fantasy violence" in something that isn't much more than asteroids is just silly, and it really could confuse a parent who thinks "Violence=Bad, even if it's only pretend". They likely wouldn't understand that you are just moving a pixel, while launching pixels at other pixels, who then expire, shooting out a few pixel tracers. That is enough to earn a "Fantasy Violence" mark on a game, even if the rating is still E. The system needs work, but it was a really good base to start with.

Danial.Beta wrote:

Well, it is the stores choice as to what they carry. Although it may be a death sentence to get the AO rating, it's as much of a problem with consumers not alerting their favorite retail store that they want the AO option as anything. There are no laws saying that a store can't sell AO games, or even unrated ones. I love the fact that the game industry has done a wonderful job of rating it's own content(the ESRB is not run by the government, nor is it financed by them, or endorsed), but the system needs some work.

Here's the problem though: "The AO rating is the subject of an ongoing, heated controversy because of the extreme restrictions it puts on game sales. For example, all three of the major video game console manufacturers (Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft) strictly prohibit the release and sale of AO-rated games on their consoles, while major retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Future Shop, and Best Buy do not allow AO-rated games on their shelves."

I've even read before that a game rated AO would not even play on a console, though that may just be a rumor.