#1 Posted by BitterAlmond (401 posts) -

As someone who lives in North America, I've occasionally disagreed with an ESRB rating or two. Almost always, I check the PEGI rating and, sure enough, it is more in accordance with my beliefs. Not only that, but PEGI also has specific markers for "Fear" and "Discrimination" in games, something that is important that the ESRB lacks. Why isn't the ESRB as good as the PEGI system? To the people who live in European countries, are there times when you disagree with the PEGI rating only to find the ESRB has done a better job?

#2 Posted by RandomInternetUser (6789 posts) -

I always think the stupid joke of "Oh shit, Peggi was 16?!" when I heard watch a PEGI trailer.  I even hate myself for doing it.  I'm glad my country has the ESRB.  Also I think the ESRB is just fine.  I do however like the little squares that describe what is in a game for the PEGI system.  For example, my UK copy of Batman Arkham Asylum for the PC has a fist that says "Violence".  More flavorful than a list of shit.

#3 Posted by ShaggE (6300 posts) -

Makes me miss the pre-ESRB (PreSRB?) days... "wanton and gratuitous violence" next to a full thermometer was so much better than current rating styles.

#4 Posted by Branthog (7340 posts) -

Nope. Never.

First, both are fucking evil and corrupt (as is the MPAA) organizations built around catering to religious nuts and political jackhole showboaters. They're essentially irrelevant entities that don't service the consumer as much as they serve themselves (assuming that, like the ESRB and MPAA the PEGI organization charges high fees for ratings and extorts developers by becoming essentially a de-facto requirement if you want any place to display and sell your games/movies/etc).

Second, the most likely difference would be that fear, discrimination, and violence (though violence of different sorts are listed) are mostly irrelevant in America. What people really want to know is "are there boobs? I don't want my sixteen year old child to see a breast..."

And, mostly, I would say that "beliefs" should be irrelevant to all the systems. Address the content and nothing more. Of course, if we're going to hold games and movies up to this bullshit, then I demand that we start doing it for books, so we can refuse to let people under eighteen checkout a murder-mystery book (or a religious book) or any other book that contains anything that the other mediums do.

Remember that, in America, the ratings system is supposedly voluntary. However, it's actually under the threat of a forced rating system. It's sort of like saying "if you don't punch yourself hard enough, we'll punch you ourselves". The result is the same. Content is labeled, categorized, discriminated against, and the creators of that content cripple their material to adhere to these things (for example, you can't have something truly mature, because the M rating only really applies to the certain limited type of M-rated crap we've already seen on the shelves and anything with nudity reaches for the AO rating - especially if there's any sex - which means nobody will carry it. And if you don't get it rated at all, NOBODY will carry it, either). The issue shouldn't be "why don't they apply more meaningless labels to these things" as it should be "why don't we grow the fuck up and let content be content". You know, just like we do for books. Do you need a book to have a label on the back that says "WARNING, THIS NOVEL CONTAINS CARTOON VIOLENCE, TOBACCO USE, AND STRONG LANGUAGE"?

And, really, if we're so intent on appeasing people, let's start adding labels like "INSULTS MUHAMMAD" and "NOT CONDONED BY CHURCH ELDERS"? Maybe have a label for "caffeine consumption" for all the games where someone drinks coffee?

#5 Posted by Kandycane2029 (511 posts) -
@Branthog: Well said. 
#6 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -

@Branthog said:

Nope. Never.

First, both are fucking evil and corrupt (as is the MPAA) organizations built around catering to religious nuts and political jackhole showboaters. They're essentially irrelevant entities that don't service the consumer as much as they serve themselves (assuming that, like the ESRB and MPAA the PEGI organization charges high fees for ratings and extorts developers by becoming essentially a de-facto requirement if you want any place to display and sell your games/movies/etc).

Second, the most likely difference would be that fear, discrimination, and violence (though violence of different sorts are listed) are mostly irrelevant in America. What people really want to know is "are there boobs? I don't want my sixteen year old child to see a breast..."

And, mostly, I would say that "beliefs" should be irrelevant to all the systems. Address the content and nothing more. Of course, if we're going to hold games and movies up to this bullshit, then I demand that we start doing it for books, so we can refuse to let people under eighteen checkout a murder-mystery book (or a religious book) or any other book that contains anything that the other mediums do.

Remember that, in America, the ratings system is supposedly voluntary. However, it's actually under the threat of a forced rating system. It's sort of like saying "if you don't punch yourself hard enough, we'll punch you ourselves". The result is the same. Content is labeled, categorized, discriminated against, and the creators of that content cripple their material to adhere to these things (for example, you can't have something truly mature, because the M rating only really applies to the certain limited type of M-rated crap we've already seen on the shelves and anything with nudity reaches for the AO rating - especially if there's any sex - which means nobody will carry it. And if you don't get it rated at all, NOBODY will carry it, either). The issue shouldn't be "why don't they apply more meaningless labels to these things" as it should be "why don't we grow the fuck up and let content be content". You know, just like we do for books. Do you need a book to have a label on the back that says "WARNING, THIS NOVEL CONTAINS CARTOON VIOLENCE, TOBACCO USE, AND STRONG LANGUAGE"?

And, really, if we're so intent on appeasing people, let's start adding labels like "INSULTS MUHAMMAD" and "NOT CONDONED BY CHURCH ELDERS"? Maybe have a label for "caffeine consumption" for all the games where someone drinks coffee?

So, you want to live in world where nothing is categorised, rated or tested for consumption but you also want to live in a world where mass production exists? There's no such world anymore. Books are rated and banned too, as is music but the difference for those two mediums vs Movies, TV, Theatre and Games is that they are not visual media and so are under less scrutiny in most cases because interpretation plays less of role in visual mediums. A penis picture with the word cock underneath is a penis but the spoken word cock can be a penis or a male chicken. Aren't you getting tired of your misinformed tirades? I know I am.

#7 Edited by Loose (419 posts) -

I just don't think that the current ESRB rating system/structure is very good. An "M" rating pretty much covers any game with any amount blood or titties in it.

#8 Posted by BombKareshi (996 posts) -
@Branthog: The ratings are there to help people make their own decisions, people whose set of moral values may well be different from yours. If the ratings don't mean anything to you, then that's great, you can ignore them. But they're not forcing you to do anything, they're not detracting from your experience and they're certainly not "evil" for existing.
#9 Posted by CookieMonster (2416 posts) -

Never really think about it to be honest.

#10 Posted by Slaker117 (4835 posts) -

I like how they kind of have two levels for the "T" rating. There are a lot of times were I see a game rated "M" and think "yeah, I understand why this is not 'T', but it's nowhere near as bad as some of the games it's being grouped with."

#11 Posted by spartanlolz92 (511 posts) -

what he said ^^^^^. 
 
I may disagree with esrb sometimes but i think we all agree kids shouldnt be playing some games.  when your an adult ratings dont mean anything so just petend that little rating doesnt exist 
 
and at least our system is better then australia it has an M rating there they can ban a game like left 4 dead  and they did

#12 Posted by AlmostSwedish (542 posts) -

@ShaggE said:

PreSRB?

No

#13 Posted by hoossy (932 posts) -
@Branthog:  
at least the system is self regulated.  By no means is it perfect, and I think any system that decides what I should and shouldn't believe at then perscribes a rating to it is... well... fishy at least.  But totally understandable as well. 
 
I much rather have a self regulating system like what they do for film and games as apposed to a governmental code of conduct.  Don't you?  Sure there are majore exterior pressures, but the industry was smart to regulate themselves, by doing so they have more control on creative output without the constant fear of lawsuits and fees.  Luckily, the Supreme Court feels the same way. 
  
 As long as we don't have to suffer under a preposterous regime as they have in Australia, then I am fairly happy.   
(you know, what they ban and not ban is getting to the point of almost being comical)