Yeah but you still need to label it so they seem silly. Otherwise they'd have a point

lProN00bl How are the parents supposed to know the content of the game if it doesn't have a rating? It's unreasonable to expect someone to say, sort through the events of Skyrim, to find out if it's teen appropriate

ThatPazuzu They could play for, say, the first 15 min themselves to check if it's appropriate. Most games I can think of which has unsuitable content for kids display it at some point within that amount of time. E.g. the beginning of Skyrim or GTA San Andreas

if the game has a rating and the parents ignore and get upset, then shame on the parents. Point is, by placing that rating there, the game did their job; can't blame the game for misinforming parents when they gave them a clear warning.

Daniel Maia That's also unreasonable. Especially because the first 15 minutes can be misleading.Like, some parent might be okay with Mass Effect's violence but not the sex scenes... which are deep into the games

would like if not on Android

woodlake

+

+

What goes up Gets flagged down Yet the policy won't slow down The Internet spinning upside down A blinding crash without a sound

I agree. Back when I was a wee lad, until I was 14, I was simply not allowed to play T rated games. Regardless of what it was for. This led to a LOT of arguments because I would actually read the box and be like "Mom, it just curses and people shoot each other. I can watch Lost but not play this?" I think a lot of parents don't really understand the games their kids are playing, and they figure the ESRB knows what's best where they don't. This is of course not the case. I'm not a parent yet, but I hope that my understanding of stuff like that helps when I am. Hopefully there won't be a paradigm shift that knocks me out of the loop in the meantime.

I don't ignore it. When the ESRB rates a game 12+ I can say with confidence that this game is good for a 12 year old, if he's into that sort of thing. If it's higher, then I will do more research if a 12 year old wants to play it. The point is, you have to have a guideline, the trick is what you do with it. As far as I'm concerned a game with cursing might as well be 18+, curses are unnecessary language and are at their core: aggressive. If a young rated game needs cursing, do it Sims style, with emotes and body language. That's all I have to say on it.

L33tImagination I couldn't disagree more about curse being inevitably unnecessary and aggressive. Go watch any stand-up comedian live set, they swear every second word, and there's little to no aggressiveness in what they're doing. There's something to be said about it being "unnecessary", in the sense that yes, you can convey the same message without cursing and it would still work, but then how would you justify making something unavailable to teenagers because there's "unnecessary" language in it?

Parents who didn't grow up as gamers might as well try to understand Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky poem. The point is, many can't understand what they're reading. That's why a simple system like the ESRB was implemented in the first place.

dominic508 I don't ever remember Bill Cosby swearing. George Carlin doesn't swear all that much either. Of the female standups I know, they don't swear, I don't recall Jim Carrey swearing that much either in his standup. It's not an all thing, in fact I think it's more 50%, which I would consider to be more unnecessary. "..justify making something unavailable to teenagers because there's unnecessary language in it". You clearly don't see language the same way I do, if you simply swap the world for violence in that sentence you get a very different picture.

The idea is that the distributor would be making more money by building the trust of consumers than by betraying their trust. In the case of big AAA games, action would probably be slow and indecisive... IF this was the only way that AAA games were rated. But AAA games are also sold in physical stores, where they're rated by the ESRB anyway, and the publisher would have to deal with PR fallout if they lied to get a lower rating for the digital version. This system would primarily apply to smaller games that can't afford to get rated by the ESRB, and I doubt the distributor would have too much of an issue with suspending those games.

Dagda Mor Yes, that's the idea. Sadly, that's not reality. Today even small games sell significant amount of copies. I doubt this will ever get implemented by Steam or any other large digital stores. I'd like them to, but I don't have any hope for it.

That would be an eroge game. :p

That's exactly the reason why no retailer would pull the game for 30 days.

Pirat hit the nail on the head here. The system is intrinsically unworkable because there's no way to give the system teeth - a game which is selling well and was misrated won't be pulled, whereas a game which was selling poorly which was misrated won't have effected enough people for it to really be a big deal anyway. Frankly, while I like the idea of a self-rating system, and I think it wouldn't even be very hard for digital distributors to implement (and indeed, they should), giving it teeth is very unlikely. They would get upset over someone lying about the content of a pornographic game, but that's likely it, realistically speaking. And in reality, it isn't very hard for parents to look up stuff anyway; while I'm an adult, I've never bought a game and been like "Wow, this game totally deceived me about what it was going to be like" in terms of "rating" - I don't feel like I've ever bought a game on Steam, Origin, or a Humble Bundle and been surprised at how much more violent or bloody or whatever it was than I had expected.

yep me too

same

That's a good point. While in, for example, Japan, there's rather strict rating system and censorship, really blatant fanservice can pass in games someone could classify as "creepy anime bullshit". I mean both partial nudity and suggestive themes, dialogues, etc. as long it does not escalate into fully shown sex. But both sex and overly brutal violence (protip: Japanese propably don't like decapitations) will warrant a CERO's Z rating (like ESRB's AO), which legally prohibits advertising and placing in shops in visible places. (that actually means many Western games were actually censored both for sex and violence in Japan, to avoid the Z rating. Yep) I think that because of such cultural differences ("prudish" Americans vs "perverted" Japanese) implementing an universal rating system would be difficult. Indie developers are from all around the world, and those devs create their games around customs and laws of their communities. Japanese can't stand gore, while Americans grab shotguns and pitchforks when any fictional less-than-18 girl drawn with big eyes gets sexualised in any degree. Universal rating system would ultimately be dictating one of those sides what is right ir wrong.

+Gergely Kozar I feel that's a decision the individuals should judge for themselves. Localizing the flagging system might help though. A game with "too many exploding heads" might get flagged in Europe, where a game with "too much sex" could get flagged in the US, thereby giving it higher scrutiny from one market than another. Of course, the SIMPLEST solution would be for people to get over their hangups about sex and violence, but in the real world, that's incredibly unlikely.

Curt Clark I honestly don't consider ratings more than recommendations. Sometimes they're about 5 years off, but who cares, right? The problem will cease to exist with the next generation, since video games are becoming so much more common in people's lives. We'll decide for ourselves and parents will know what they're talking about.

Gergely Kozar That's a good policy. :)

But that would be true for any universal rating system, would it not? Any rating system that affects games on Steam, the App Store, or any other distributer that sells games to a global market is invariably going to run into problems with different cultures having different values. When you think about it, this problem would exist even if games were given different ratings based on location. I know for a fact that, in my own neighborhood, there are parents who think that bloody video games are perfectly fine for a nine-year-old, and parents who think they're too bad for even a sixteen-year-old. Ultimately, the people who buy these games are going to have to make their own judgements about a game's rating. If a game is only rated M because it has nudity, and you're totally fine with nudity, then you're more than capable of treating it differently than a game that's rated M for things to which you do object.

The Mech Treehouse that is SO cool

That's not even the worst one NC-17 is the worst

"My child was running around naked yesterday. They were playing Mario Kart earlier. MARIO IS TEACHING KIDS BAD LESSONS RHDYFBEIREEEEEEFGEHSICVSNWISJCHRB" ~Triggered parent

Nope my parents actually listened to the esrb

Miles Rappaport Sorry, but I OBJECT! Not really though.

Yea, I can imagine a brand new indie developer forgetting to check one little box, and as a result getting their game suspended for a month at launch, ruining their sales and their studio.

That's the developer's fault.

BionicDirector117 Developer's fault yea, but i don't want to wait a month more to buy a game because it get a wrong rating, because i dont care about it. You can't deny the game to people who dont care about ratings because of those who care.

Quanvex i dont think indie developer would forget to check the game was made by a hand of people you could just let all come together someone reads the points anytime there is something like that in the game someone would say somthing like "yea i did that" i dont think someone would forget whats in the game. You could hand out a list to playtesters too and at something like the punishment of one week they would check the list more than two times. If they after all of this still forget to make the rating right i would doubt they even care about the month

Logus Dumbeldor Forget the developers, I'm more concerned about those who do not care about this ratings, but can not buy a game cuz it was banned because of a wrong rating. Ratings are not an essential thing to alot of consumers. Just put a warning on the store to all who care about it.

Do you belong go india 🇮🇳

@@maitreyadahiya8091 no from Algeria

Chinoun Mahdi ok

@@Pixel_Entriment24 I made a research paper about your country once. Still boggles the mind on how many terms an unpopular president can get.

Same here, I met some kids who is waiting to be 11, beacause their parents said they only can play gta then. A lot of kids play GTA at a much younger age

Well, PEGI 18 is more comparable to an M. 12s and 16s are Ts, then 3s and 7s are E.

@@cheese6782 like how M for Manga is more comparable to TV-MA for TV Manga ratings A=all ages T=13+ OT=16+(some of theres are in the TV-14 range) M=18+

@@cheese6782 Also what about Germany? There are shows released under porn labels in the US that are FSK 16 over there?

so druu

you calling my mum dumb....I can agree

Game Dev: “Madam, there are warnings... at the bottom corners of the front and back of game cases, with Rated M, that's a game equivalent to R to movies. There's even a list of those content on the back next to the ratings.”

+MrXemrox mom: LOL DO YOU THINK ANYONE WOULD READ THOSE RSTINGS? FHXNTHTUNDNSYNTUMXH

SapFireMC of course not, but they should finally be aware that not every game is for little kids

Austin Robichaud as a smaller game developer, I do have my own launcher, but next to nobody uses it. I also release to steam, the app store, itch.io, and the whole lot, which is where the actual sales comes in from. My website is simply less convenient than the built in systems that consumers use.

Robo_Kirby wha-?

Agreeably there are gaps that come up in the modern world. tbh, "teen" is relatively new, just 100 or so years ago you'd be seen as adult by 15, now you are (at earliest) 18 when seen as adult. go back another 100 or so years and your soon at a time when 13 is adult. thus making "teen" a irrelevant term.

Robo_Kirby PT (Preteen)

I did message the ESRB about that and they said it wasn't a good idea.

In Europe we have 12, 15 and 18.

E for Everyone.

No, for me it's G - all PG - Mildly Scary M - not recommended for children but they're allow 13+ - must be thirteen, if not requires parent or guardian supervision 16+ - above but replace 13 with 16

the reason that so many games are rated over what they should be is because ESRB doesn't do their job correctly, as in they don't play the games

What about AO?

PEGI is easier to understand with the bright colours for the age ratings and its much more simpler than the esrb

These Age ratings arent good.. none of it. German USK is worst, btw.

Isn't pegi the law in some European countries though (I.e. their age ratings are legally enforced)?

@@crimsonshield59 very confusing system!

octet33 This is what the PEGI system does

@@TheRushingTiger and the BBFC

most countries use different ratings

accquizzer well, what do you wanna talk about? They look like Playdough in 5 and there's no blood, so yeah

So I guess I'm not the only one who felt like Halo 1-4 should have been rated T. I mean if you really analyze the games, they would have probably gotten a PG-13 rating if they were movies.

@@darthutah6649 probably got M because of the flood, so I'm not sure why 4 would get M

yes please

@xx_fazeminecrafter_2054_xx you are indeed correct for me at least

TriangleMax tbh it’s true

It already has worked on microsoft platforms before, XBLIG used the system described here almost to the letter, and it has worked, for years

Pominator I knew I had seen a similar idea somewhere!

Your Right my mom never did! (I did though)

I am superior to all. Says who?

Says research from multiple sources, including a book from college professors titled Grand Theft Childhood. Not my feelings, FAX.

Sounds efficient.

Well. Yeah. It's the potentially inappropriate parts that thy are warning consumers about. So whoever is putting down the rating and warnings doesn't really need to see if the game also has cute animals or smooth gameplay - that's not relevant to the warnings. People who write *reviews* are the ones who need to play the game.

They said in the video that the flagging system would only work if the flags prompted the independent rating body actively examines the flagged game to see if the complaints are legitimate. If the game experience is static, say, there is no DLC or expansions, they could even blank out flagging options. Say someone accuses a game of unmarked sexual content, and the independent rating body looks into their complaint, and find no sexual content. They'll probably look more broadly at the game to see if it has any sexual content, and if it does not, they can blank out that complaint. The game will not change, it will not suddenly generate its own sexual content, so there's no reason to accuse it of such, so there's no reason to look for it.

John Edwards I don't think you understand my issue with the system. My problem with it is that people will lie. While the system may first be able to void these complaints, eventually the workload will be too much to handle and they will employ an automatic system. Since an automatic system can't actually perceive content, it will most likely believe the complaints are valid based on the volume of complaints. Which means the system can be easily tricked by a flagging campaign. In other words, we will eventually have the youtube flagging system which have been proven to not work. Even if the system WAS controlled by moderators, we have seen that moderators can and will abuse their power. If a flag campaign is caused by an ideological movement, say a religious one, a moderator could agree with the movement and falsely validate the flags. This will get the game removed and the developers fined, or at least look bad. We seen this happen before in the gaming industry, on youtube, and on twitter. If you make a system that penalizes people and is controlled by people, it will be corrupted and used as a weapon. If the system penalizes people and is automatic, the system will be exploited and tricked to be used into a weapon. Any system that penalizes will eventually be used as a weapon.

"Two, certain games will get flagged for ideological reasons and if the person reviewing the flagged game is someone that agrees with the ideology, that game gets more or less banned." That's why we need an impartial third party. "and the person that reviews the game content is a fan of Arnita. That person will then say that the flag campaign is correct and Hitman gets taken off." That's why we need an impartial third party. "Any system that penalizes will eventually be used as a weapon." As long as the third party is impartial (which may be a feat in itself) things will be fine.

lonercs First up; games are extremely different from KZfaq for a whole bunch of reasons. Here's the two biggest ones: 1. There are many many many fewer games than there are youtube videos; let alone games that get flagged enough that a human needs to look at them. 2. There is no way to auto-check a game anyway. AI is not good enough to complete a game by itself and wouldn't know an objectionable scene if it saw one. How would an automated system know what implied drug use looked like? Cartoon vs realistic violence? Would it even be able to recognize sexualized nudity vs unsexualized nudity? Maybe it could parse the audio files and text of the game to look for objectionable words, but that's the extent of what we can hope to do any time in the next 20 years -- probably longer. Second;A dev should be able to amend their list of "potentially objectionable content" in order to deal with criticism they never considered. A: "Your game contains religious imagery I find offensive: Flag!" B: "I never thought that this could be offensive, I'll update my content description and give you a refund if you rescind your flag." A: "I'm still offended, but at least you're doing the right thing and I get my money back." and, scene. Everybody gets to be the good guy here, and the rating doesn't have to go up for review. Even if every flagger lies every time, the system falls back on what it is today: The ESRB rates games based on a list they have or those games go unrated with only what the devs tell you is in the game. Your issues make no sense. The EC-proposed system is a strict upgrade. Additionally, your allegations of corruption or ideological bias -- regardless of their veracity -- don't matter. :/ The Hitman developers already listed the objectionable content that they would have been flagged for (Intense Violence, Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes) and so the flags mean nothing. Here's their content list: "Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes, Strong Language, Use of Drugs" Flaggers would only be able to flag games for content that is part of this Unified Content Ratings List. So, unless "violence against sexualized female characters" was a separate item on that list, there's no way to flag for it. If it did exist on that list, the Hitman devs have a responsibility to include that in their list of objectionable content and the flags are perfectly accurate. Furthermore, games already have a more subtle way of letting consumers know more about the content in a game: the Rating Summary. You can read the objectionable content list and rating summary for Hitman Absolution here: www.esrb.org/ratings/synopsis.jsp?Certificate=32539&Title=Hitman%20Absolution

lonercs We don't have an automated system now, despite the workload. Just put the same people in charge that are running things now - and don't give them any delusions that it'll eliminate their need to keep doing their jobs - and it shouldn't be any more abused than the ESRB ratings are now. Which is to say, only rarely.

Wonder

Why didn’t I think of that

i do too

Same

wait....

WHAT

Why is that?

@@rajatshukla2605 I have no idea

HOW

That Anonymous person that's a very dangerous school

That Anonymous person I don't think that should be happening

If there are regularly fights at your school where people need hospitalization, then you shouldn’t be there.

what kind of school do you go to??!

IDK?

Lol

Oh s**t

what about the TV ratings?

gmod, minecraft or any sandbox game for the matter a game full with user created content is bound to have explicit content look at all the penis cars on the gmod dupe list.

The ESRB already has a fix for the online part. It's called the "Online interactions not rated by the ESRB"-tag

As all games can be modded, Mod's wouldn't be rated.

Unless the mods can be accessed and downloaded directly from within the game (which is not the case in Minecraft), then it's not part of the game; it's part of the Internet. Let whoever we put in charge of rating the Internet handle it.

When was there a nudity mod?

Cian First of all, it takes a couple minutes, 10 if you're thorough. Second of all, if you're gonna be such a shitty parent than most definitely this is a flawed label system as it prevents the kids from ever enjoying certain games because they "have violence".

The rating system is useful not just for parents, but for adult gamers as well. Say I want to play a fighting game, and all I want is an enjoyable night with friends beating the crap out of each other on a screen. I could go for a Smash Brothers title, or I could get a Mortal Kombat derivative. If I don't wanna deal with excessive gore as a part of my evening (say a friend has a weak stomach for gore) I can look at the rating and say 'This game has no gore, this one has gore. I know which one I want now.' It's not so much about keeping bad things away from the kiddies, it's more about letting any consumer look at the package and know what they're in for. Think of it more like Steam's category system with regulatory application.

Cian No matter how uninformed of a parent you are, finding stuff on a game isn't hard, Wikipedia is a great source of information for that and most people know it. The ESRB does not check the game scene by scene either, if you have an issue with a game that contains one violent scene, it is your job to research this properly instead of expecting the world to make ratings for you. That's a niche crowd, not the other way around. Secondly, not really, I know for a fact that sexual content will immediately flag a game as M, or any intense violence despite the meaning of it. Playing an RTS is not the same as playing GTA, for example. Allowing the consumers to stay ignorant by giving them a dumbed down rating system is not the way to fix this. You don't want to inform yourself? Suffer the consequences then. That's how it should be. That way people don't make judgements on games based on ratings. John Edwards Again, 5 minute search on your phone for the example you stated above. If you're buying a game impulsively and get punished for it, that's your own fault. A system which allows for uninformed people who don't usually play games to make judgements about games with a simple glance is never good.

No, it is not the consumer's responsibility to go do some investigative journalism to determine _what_ a product is. Consider the issue of spoilers, for instance. How can I know whether a given game contains a sex scene without knowing what happens in the game? What about drug use or torture? Many things that would be objectionable are used as key plot points in a game, and knowing the context of this objectionable content would potentially spoil that scene for you whether or not you would have found it offensive.

alvarosave i think your not listening very well. both the other commentators have brought up good points. the rating system exists for an easy to understand quick reference with a few blurbs on the back for extra insight. for the most part it has worked well enough. people are very busy sometimes and taking time to research a product you know nothing about is still time away from other matters whether its 10 minutes or 1 hour. it also protects the industry since no one can really buy a game and say "i didnt know it had blood" since its clearly labeled M for mature. "A system which allows for uninformed people who don't usually play games to make judgements about games with a simple glance is never good." how? it saves time, protects the kids, and at worst the kid might not get to play a T rated game big whoop

this was 5 years ago

@@rehehehehehe4525 r/woooosh

@@sojourner_303 r/thatshitisfuckinglame

Dr. Duck: gaming the slow way only money can play

Sie sind das Essen und wir sind die Jäger!

And the AoT reference too. :D

Pegi?

well sometimes the games get rated before thyer are finished. Besides what could be apropriate in video form but innapropriate to actualy play?

@@jacobschweiger5897 There may be an optional part of the game which has scenes that make the game a higher rating. They could also completely skip any parts that have bad things in it, and that could make a M game an E game.

Sir Sammy that’s pretty smart

That sounds way too lenient.

It's just an example, but i'd rather a studio get away with it than an innocent mistake by a studio get punished

I'd say that the very first flag should send a warning message to the developer. 'Hey, someone complained about this. Is it true?' The devs have a limited time frame to respond to the flag (say, two business days). After a time frame of inaction, punishment is dealt (fees, removals, etc.). Honest and innocent mistakes should not be fatal. Schools nowadays have that problem with handling 'incidents'. For example, if a test has only five questions on it, it takes a single mistake to fail the test completely. I've experienced tests like that. It sucks.

I think they should have a message "you will be punished," and then have time to change it. and respond to those who left flags to ask "is it good now?"

Rated M for mature (TV-MA)

It's CERO in Japan.

Elouj Time Reaver it's not only about slapping age recommendation on games, but different ratings also mean different stuff so even if your views about sex or violence are different than general public you can just check what that rating means and adjust from there

Except that the salesperson feels responsible for enforcing the system and will hassle your children for buying games, or even selecting them while you are there to buy it for them. The ability to supplement an issue with society via awareness and effort, does not make it a non issue. Besides, the whole rating system is heavily slanted in favor of violence and against sex. Games rated E often have some degree of violence, and stores do not even carry games that have any actual sex in them. If you are a non-Christian pacifist the whole rating system appears incredibly corrupt and disturbing.

Tell that to my dad.

Josh McCourt i personally never came across kid in gta. But nobody really talks in that game anyways.

This is true mostly of in-store games. Any game that sells in-store generally benefits from the edginess/"forbidden fruit" factor of an M rating with younger audiences. Older audiences also carry some expectations of what an M rated game contains: if they feel M rated games barely satisfy their mature content requirements, they may never pick up a rated T game. You can see the reverse in online games, which are often hesitant to get an M rating despite rather explicit content. Two cases of this are Undertale and League of Legends. As far as I know, Undertale doesn't even ascertain the age of anybody wishing to play it, despite presence of controversial topics regarding sexuality and it's incredible level of emotional violence (whoo boy, genocide route...) League is much simpler: it has violence, sexual innuendo, tobacco, and alcohol usage. It's canon that Karthus (at least Pentakill Karthus) has a severe drinking problem. Twisted fate has a gambling problem, Graves *used* go smoke, and Gragas is the most stereotypical ultra-drunkard given magical powers. League only gets a T rating for all of that.

+Roman Nasuti Thank you. I didnt know this.

Bloody gore splatter-XII rated M... for money.

VampireBuddha In the US.

wait what is the pegi I live in the us so idk halp

@@grantm5495 It's a European age rating system

Manga:M movies:NC-17 TV:the stuff you can't put on TV

I mean Dog's Life is 3+ and the main antagonist gets turned into cat food.

It is starting to happen. I forgot what it's called but you can find it on the ESRB. Currently very few stores use it though.

+antimezz11 when making google play apps, for example you have to fill in a checklist similar to what they named

+antimezz11 I agree, I like this.

Twilight Princess: Rated T Majora's Mask: Rated E. No 10+, just E for Everyone.

@@chronenojysk5107 I don't think E10+ existed at the time of Majora's Mask.

Ian R. ESRB was founded in 1994. Majora’s mask came out in 2000

@@chronenojysk5107 E10+ released in 2005. It's on the Wikipedia article.

Ikr

GTA IS 17+

If we assume that the developers do the game because they want to, not because they just want a money source. The second type WILL want a lower rating because it will open the games for more potential consumers.

See, that's what I don't believe. That may have been true 20 years ago, when most gamers were too young to have much money themselves and their parents were largely the authority in what they bought and played. Today, a LOT of gamers are in their 30s (like me), and even among the teens and pre-teens, it seems fewer and fewer parents actually care what the rating is or why, just as long as it's not AO. The reason I said dark, gritty games WANT that M rating isn't because it's somehow staying true to their art or anything, but because they know their fans, their *customers* WANT that dark and gritty setting. Think Call of Duty, The Witcher, GTA, etc. An M rating for these kinds of games is an advertisement, not a condemnation Here's a decent article on the topic from 2015: www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-Facts-2015.pdf Salient facts: Only 26% of gamers today are under 18, male and female The average gamer today is a 35-year-old male The average game buyer today is 37 years old (barely higher than the average gamer, suggesting most gamers buy for themselves) 4 of the top 10 most selling console games today have M ratings 5 of the top 10 most selling PC games have an M rating Sadly, I couldn't actually find anything on the sales figures by rating, but those last two points say a lot.

ULTRAAA PUNBOOOO!

Indonesian 21+ rating: woah there

Come to think of it, EC's proposal of users reporting misuse of the rating system and the distributors reviewing the case sounds an awful lot like KZfaq's reporting system. They wouldn't get any ad revenue from a video that was taken offline due to a violation to their policies, yet, they still do. Although, such a system has its problems still. TheJWittz had some hassle with his Lavender Town video being wrongly flag. Despite that, KZfaq still takes action. Could you describe how EC's proposal is significantly different or show a real life example showing your case? Couldn't the fee for rating the game over again make up for the distributor's losses in their cut?

I wouldn't want government involved. Maybe an independent third body, but opening it up to government providing and enforcing the ratings system is a bit dangerous. The US government doesn't like being involved in censorship, and I'd prefer that they didn't.

It is illegal for the government to become involved in rating media products in countries with freedom of speech because then the government would have control over what content was available to whom. That is unconstitutional in the United States.

Titanium Dragon Here here!

Titanium Dragon Tell that to the FCC and whoever decided to make it mandatory to have age gates on websites for M-rated games.

Garuu Spike That could very easily be abused. If it's soley by popular vote, then you should expect games like harvest moon and pokemon to end up being rated M17+ for Intense Violence, Sexual Themes, Use of Drugs/Alcohol, etc.

Just look at the tags the game has

I feel like there should be Older teens as well

Well I mean take Halo for example. If there was a movie version of those games they would be PG13.

Like how OT for manga is either a standard TV-14 or a really bad TV-MA

@@Madmonkeman a lot of TV-14 show have OT manga

@@cradica What does OT mean?

@@Madmonkeman older teen (16+) I've seen TV-MA shows with teen manga and TV-14 shows with older teen manga then again the content changes between show and book

I could agree!

What is there to interpret? Is there violence? yes/no Is there blood/gore? yes/no Is there use of alcohol/drugs? yes/no Is there nudity? yes/no I mean it's not exactly like a measurement of how offensive it is, because that's bullshit. It's just asking "Are these things in your game?" and if they are, then it will run it probably through a point system and assign a rating based on a system that is already established. For example, maybe violence is worth 1 point, but alcohol use is 3 points, and nudity is 10. If your game is within a range, like say 12-15 for M or something, then it's that rating. It's not subjective.

Yes, video games are subjective. Not sure why you would assume otherwise. And I'm sure it looks simple to just do a checkbox-style approach to the whole process. But, well let me give an example (just a forewarning I'm about to spoil some small elements of Silent Hill 2 which are intense and disturbing, don't go forward if this might disturb you): In a particular scene in Silent Hill 2 the monster Pyramid head is seen grabbing a feminine-looking monster by the legs and grinding suggestively on it (neither creature has visible genitalia, just for reference). The way it plays out the player likely thinks its just creepy spasms, because before that point you see Pyramid several times moving awkwardly and being cruel to other monsters. There's two ways to interpret that scene: he's either being erratic and moderately violent or it's implied rape. This is just one example but the point being if the game was marked as having sexual content (which it isn't btw) then some may say that's not fair as sexual content is never actually shown, just implied.

The joys of Anal Rape I agree. In the end the only one who can determine what content is appropriate for someone is themself, or their legal guardians in the case of minors. Really, no matter what kind of rating or desciptors are put on the game, it won't ever really be enough. But with online reviews and gameplay videos, it should be easier to tell what games have in them. Also, my bad I'm glad I put a spoiler warning then. I'll highly recommend SH2 however you can get it, but I'd advise you to avoid the HD remaster of the game. It's plagued by a lot of technical and graphical bugs (bad framerate, missing assets, etc.) and it's even locked at a lower resolution than the higest quality settings of the original PC version. Stay away from it especially the 360 version. PS3 got a patch that fixed some (but not all) of the problems but 360 didn't even get that. Just some advice from a SH fan.

PrimeSonicYT Sure, but people do find certain kinds of content more objectionable than others. A lot of parents don't mind if their children are exposed to excessive violence but do mind if they are exposed to sexual content. It's a double-standard, but that's how it is. Certain descriptors can be more important than the overall rating.

The joys of Anal Rape probelm with a point based system is that almost all gamers are desenstised to in game voilence so even if a sexual seggestive scene in any way but no voilence at all ,for example in a corrupt detective game,is played in it then it will be rated M but you could still blow off a throsand zombie heads and come out with a T rateing if that was all done in the context of the game.

Blood? What on Earth is blood doing in A Hat in Time?

Bruh.

M3L0619 those ratingsystem somtimes makes 0 sense

the gamer Amen. Got quite a few games that somehow are missing ratings for content.

I think they could have a list of the words used, also there would have to be an official list of what counts as cursing

selfie elfie Exactly, like the seven words you can't say on television.

POO!

As a scratcher I don't get this.

What happened to Portal wasn't something that changed with Portal, but something that changed with the ESRB. Between the release of Portal and its sequal, the ESRB added the E-10 rating, and so when Portal 2 came out, it got a higher rating not because Portal 2 had more mature content than its predecessor, but because Portal would have received that rating itself if it existed at the time. Also, the F-bomb example is a poor one, because that's something that we've taken from film rating. In film, an F-bomb generally earns you an R rating, so gaming has copied that with its equivalent rating. I will agree that some of the tags could probably use some differentiation of severity, as you mentioned with the drugs and alcohol

+miles prower portal 1 got a T rating. portal 2 got E-10. sorry if i didn't make that clear. yeah the f-bomb example was pretty terrible. basisly, what I want from a rating system is to know if I'm going to watch someones intestines being dragged out of there stomach, and "M" is just too broad for that.

Your previous statement regarding E-10 implied you'd use an example where E-10 is too high of a rating, thus creating the confusion. That said, the introduction of E-10 could still very well be why the rating dropped, whether intentionally targeted for it by Valve by removing the blood, or if the blood simply wasn't added because it didn't add anything and would've taken effort to add. In the first game, I'm pretty sure the blood splatters were there because that's something Half Life 2 did. The ESRB's system is designed to try to give you that kind of information though, via the content descriptors found next to the rating (usually on the back of the game case for physical copies, while the front only has the rating itself). Though I will admit that these descriptors can sometimes be a little lacking in granularity.

yeah, after playing HL2 I found that portal felt like a mod. I was trying to say that "T" was too high of a rating, as the blood was quite mild. the problem with the descriptors is that "blood and gore" could be anything from basic bloodspater, to gibs. (I'm having difficulty coming up with a better example than that, so I'll just leave it there.)

I wouldn't say Portal was mild enough for an E rating, though, and E-10 didn't exist at the time, so T was definitely more fitting. This plays heavily into why E-10 was added to the system, though the descriptions of the ratings given by the ESRB implies Blood may generally be an automatic T rating. Actually, if we compare the descriptors between Portal and say, Doom, you'll see that Portal simply has "Blood" where Doom has "Blood and Gore" so it is a bit more concise than that, but it doesn't distinguish between say, simple meaty-looking gibs and dismembered or eviscerated bodies, though the "Intense Violence" tag also found on doom factors into that as well, and both could be taken to deserve the M rating they earn anyway.

Yes

Achievement unlocked: Watched the video