Ratings in movies and videogames.

[Saraph]

For a long time, I have supported the ESRB rating system. Selling a game such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to a minor without parental supervision can, in my opinion, negatively influence a child's development. Not that said child will go out and start blowing up cars, but it does certainly plant such an idea in his/her head. Children are analogous to sponges, soaking up knowledge to further their development in life; therefore, I believe exposing them to images of violence before they are ready and mature enough to process them can be dangerous.

I've recently watched the movie entitled "Stay Alive", that is based around a survival horror game which comes to life and kills all who fail to beat it. A novel idea in concept, but it quickly falls into the usual cliche horror mold, involving hangings, throat slashings, and a horse and buggy "accident". This is all very similar but a little less graphic than Final Destination death scenes which, by the way, did have an "R" rating. So, if a movie is similar but just a touch less graphic in some areas, does that mean we give it a more child-friendly rating? Final Destination 3 received its "R" rating because of "strong horror violence/gore, language and some nudity", while a movie such as Stay Alive was able to breeze by with a PG-13 rating because of "horror violence, disturbing images, language, brief sexual and drug content". So already we can see that the MPAA has a flawed system, but it gets far worse...

Well-known gaming franchises such as Resident Evil Code: Veronica and Silent Hill 4 received ratings from the ESRB of M(17+) for "Animated Blood & Gore,Animated Violence" and "Blood and Gore,Intense Violence,Sexual Themes". Most stores, such as Wal-Mart and Electronics Boutique, will not sell a game like this to a minor. Games that carry the "M" rating are tantamount to the MPAA's version of the "R" rating. As such we have two ratings systems which are, in essence, equivalent for two different types of media.

A movie such as Stay Alive isnt exactly bridging the gap, but it does show the viewer "Blood and Gore,Intense Violence,Sexual Themes" which is a direct quote from the ESRB pertaining to content found in Silent Hill 4. If a youth at the age of 13 is allowed to enter a movie without parental supervision, where is the rationale in disallowing him/her to play at home on a Playstation 2 what he/she is allowed to watch? A lot of parents I meet place their trust in these rating systems so that their child isnt exposed to anything they would otherwise deem unhealthy for them but, if these systems are so flawed, who can we trust? The answer to that question is simple, one can only trust oneself. Parents of young teenagers can't go by rating systems alone, they need to know what their child is watching and playing. Unfortunately, most parents aren't willing to put in that time and effort, instead allowing their teenager to see violent images in order to get a few moments of peace from their days at work.

A flawed system indeed...

Resources:
ESRB
MPAA
Stay Alive
Final Destination 3

[racketboy]

I would agree with most of what you said, but I think that a lot of movies get put into PG-13 that I wouldn't want to take a 13-year-old too. But maybe that's just me.

And maybe there should maybe be two levels of "Mature" games.
I would probably let a teenager play Resident Evil before I would Grand Theft Auto.

And I know that games have at LEAST a little influence on kids. I was big into Street Fighter 2 when it came out and, while I didn't go around picking fights with random people, by little brother and I would act fights out a little. And at this point I was about 13 yrs old. I would think that a younger kid would be more impressionable.

I see lots of parents buying GTA for their kids that are much younger than that. And all I can do is shake my head.

I think the problem is that parents are uniformed or just don't care. The kids beg for GTA and similar games and the parents just go along with it. OR, like I've seen in Gamestops, I've seen dads getting GTA for their kids and the clerk kindly reminds them (in simple details) the kind of content that is in the game. The dad just says. "Oh I know, I'll be playing it with him". What a great father.

Although there is the other end of the spectrum. I could help but notice a few years back that this kid was shopping with his mom and sibling for an XBox game. He picked out Jet Set Radio Future and showed it to his mom. She refused (even after much begging) to get it for him because it was rated T (Teen) for some mild violence or something. Poor kid. I really don't think JSRF would scar a 10-12 year old. Instead he misses out on a great series unless he goes back and buys it later in life.

[Niode]

We don't have that system in the UK it's the same rating system for Games and Movies.

Why is JSR:F rated T? I don't see any objectionable content whatsoever!! My UK PAL copy of JSR:F has a tiny little box on the bottom that says 11+ but everyone in the UK ignores these as it's a foreign system from Europe and not familiar to anybody in the UK as we are used to the BBFC age system (U, PG, 12, 15, 18 ). Still 11+ is not implying it's for teens at all! Other than that there is now rating on the box what-so-ever!

Seems the rating systems in America are very strict.

[Saraph]

I would agree with most of what you said, but I think that a lot of movies get put into PG-13 that I wouldn't want to take a 13-year-old too. But maybe that's just me.

Well, the whole point of my post wasn't to focus only on those movies and games I mentioned, but to make them an example of what is a common occurance in both these systems.

And I know that games have at LEAST a little influence on kids. I was big into Street Fighter 2 when it came out and, while I didn't go around picking fights with random people, by little brother and I would act fights out a little. And at this point I was about 13 yrs old. I would think that a younger kid would be more impressionable.

Violent imagery and blatent cartoon violence are a bit different. In Street Fighter, characters perform moves that are impossible or close to it in real life to execute. I used to play fight with my friends as well, sometimes someone got a few bruises, but overall we were kind. A game like Resident Evil places a real life character in a fantasy situation with, for the most part, realistic weapons. Any child between the ages of 8-15 can play one of these games and remember where daddy hid his gun so he can play "Resident Evil" with his friends. It's a very common scenerio. Children are less likely to know how to use a gun or know of it if they havent had virtual experience with one.

What brought this idea about is the fact that in Stay Alive, the viewer get's to watch a virtual death scene of themselves before dyeing. So a 13 year old can watch a violent videogame death on a theater size screen, but can't go out and buy the game when it's released.

The game Stay Alive had the creative mind of Cliff Bleszinski of Unreal Tournament fame behind the wheel and will no doubt have an "M" rating.

Resource:
The Hollywood Byte #11: The Guys Behind Stay Alive

[Conn]

I don't watch many movies, and when I do I usually don't even know what the hell the rating is, so I can't comment on the MPAA, but I CAN comment on the ESRB.

For the most part, I think the ESRB works fine. I do think that some games are rated a bit higher than they should be (see below), such as Castlevania. But then I think 1) Castlevania isn't exactly 'kids' material and 2) North America is very, very paranoid about video games. Case in point; video games are blamed for everything. So therefore, a game getting a higher rank than it should doesn't bother me much, as there is probably some content in there a mother will freak out about he 7 year old playing (Phoenix Wright, for example; the whole games revolves around murders.)

I don't understand how Halo 1 and 2 got M, but Star Wars: Republic Commando got T. I think that Star Wars: Republic Commando is actually a bit more violent in most cases.

(side-note; both games are pretty much the same, down to the controls, gameplay and 'futuristic' setting. Really, the main difference is that Halo supports co-op, has cutscenes, and Republic Commando has you controlling a squad and frequent voiceovers in the game.)

I'm also a bit curious as to why Metal Gear Solid, 2 and 3 all got M. I've played 1 (in the form of TTS) and 3, and they're hardly M at all. A few sexual references sometimes, and blood (which is OPTIONAL), but not that violent. Maybe because in MGS3 you can slit throats, hold guys hostage and choke them, plus are encouraged to kill animals?

And hey, what's up with gambling? Whenever a game is based around a casino, then BAM it suddenly gets T or M or something. It shouldn't be encouragign kids to gamble, but I find it pretty odd.

Lastly; what the hell is the point of the AO rating? As far as I can tell, it's reserved for games with sex and that's it. Why not just make a seperate rating for Porn games? Something like R or something?

Personally, I would make the ratings like so;

Early Childhood - 3+, Edutainment games
Everyone - 6+
Everyone 10+ - ..10+
Teen - 11+
Mature - 15+
Adults Only - 18+
Resticted - 18+, Porn games

[e]

I see lots of parents buying GTA for their kids that are much younger than that. And all I can do is shake my head.

Agreed, completely. Last year, we had little buddies from a school close to ours. An elementary school, obviously. I overherad one of the kids said that his favourite game was Grand Theft Auto. I went up to him and told him I pitied him.

..Besides, GTA sucks.

[lordofduct]

I like the rating system for a few reasons.

Every systerm inherently has flaws. A man just can't create a perfect system... especially handling such variety as this.

The rating system is there for those who don't have the time to research in their own ways. Of course this will lean more to the extreme side as not to play off on the blatantly ignorant. Just as we have the parents buying GTA for their 7 year old... atleast we tried to warn them. Their own fault now if the kid gets all buggered up on hoe cappin' and haitian killing.

It'd be nice if the parents would read the entire back of the case (and that the back described more about content truthfully) and read reviews of the game and ask the compitent cashier of a video game store for opinions. But a lot of parents don't care... shit, my mother had me watch "Clockwork Orange" when I was merely 9, but refused to let me own a copy of "Mortal Kombat".

Just like the bias reviews you read in magazines, hear from GameStop employees or the kid standing at the rack next to you. The Rating system is just another bias review that a person "should" use to assist them in making their own decission. Lazy people ignore them or take them for 100% truth though. And that is their own damn fault!

[oxymoron]

Bump.

I think the rating system should be treated more like advice and less like law. Parents and clerks should be educated about the system and compliment it with common sense. Some of the ratings the ESRB hands out are overkill. I don't see why a 10+ kid shouldn't play Diablo 3 or Bionic Commando.

[Opa Opa]

Bump.

I think the rating system should be treated more like advice and less like law. Parents and clerks should be educated about the system and compliment it with common sense. Some of the ratings the ESRB hands out are overkill. I don't see why a 10+ kid shouldn't play Diablo 3 or Bionic Commando.

Unless the ruling has changed, I'm pretty sure retailers aren't forced to sell games by age restrictions; though they do check ages to cover their rear ends so an unhappy parent can't come back to them.

I don't know about the content in Diablo or Bionic Commando. You can read their descriptions to see why they received their particular rating.

[oxymoron]

Bump.

I think the rating system should be treated more like advice and less like law. Parents and clerks should be educated about the system and compliment it with common sense. Some of the ratings the ESRB hands out are overkill. I don't see why a 10+ kid shouldn't play Diablo 3 or Bionic Commando.

Unless the ruling has changed, I'm pretty sure retailers aren't forced to sell games by age restrictions; though they do check ages to cover their rear ends so an unhappy parent can't come back to them.

I don't know about the content in Diablo or Bionic Commando. You can read their descriptions to see why they received their particular rating.

That's why I said it's treated like a law. I know why Diablo and BC got "M" ratings. I'm saying the rating is overkill.

[BurningDoom]

Bump.

I think the rating system should be treated more like advice and less like law. Parents and clerks should be educated about the system and compliment it with common sense. Some of the ratings the ESRB hands out are overkill. I don't see why a 10+ kid shouldn't play Diablo 3 or Bionic Commando.

I could see it with Diablo 3. Gruesome and horrifying imagery. It may be nothing for us, but for small children, that's nightmare fuel.