Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

[BigV]

Clodfobble,

I am trying to understand your position. Are you saying that the people who assign ratings to the games based on content are doing a poor job of it? Are you saying that they're giving ratings to games that are lower (less restrictive) than the content of the game should warrant? I am trying to follow your example about the movie 9 1/2 weeks, and it's R rating. I don't understand if you mean that this level of nudity and pornography should deserve an R rating or not. And how does that relate to your thoughts on the game rating systems?

[BigV]

We have a young son who loves video games. His cousin of the same age does too, but the cousin is continually pushing my envelope for what games they should play. At our house, I rule. I take the rating as *one* piece of the puzzle, and add that nugget of information to everything else I can learn about the game. I watch them play some, I listen to what they talk about, I observer their behavior during and after, I read (like this) about the games. All the regular stuff a parent does. If Grandpa or Grandma delivered a game that met with my displeasure, the game would disappear, and some amount of explaining would follow, maybe a little, maybe none, maybe more.

We use the same strategy with the movies we watch in the living room. We're pretty liberal about what we let him see. We discuss it, and try not to fumble the parenting aspect of it too often. There are movies I just won't let him watch. It has sooo little to do with the rating on the box, though. One R movie may be ok, and another R movie -- No Way.

I reckon you understand despite my mush mouth "explanations". I hope so.

[Clodfobble]

Sorry it was unclear. I am saying the following list of things:

1.) The ESRB should admit that their rating system is totally equivalent to the movie system, and quite trying to give each level a different letter representation than the movie rating system. I understand that they want to be independent, and not beholden to what constitutes an "R" movie according to the movie ratings people, but the reality is the systems have the same number of levels and basically the same content requirements.

2.) The game industry in general should educate people about this ratings system if they insist on keeping it separate. The simplest way would be a big sign in every Electronics Boutique, GameStop, etc. showing the content description of each rating level. Or the sign could be a lot smaller, if it just equated the videogame rating with its comparable movie rating.

3.) The game industry is not going to educate people about their ratings system in any meaningful way, because they want all those copies of GTA to keep flying off the shelves and don't actually want parents to get a clue and stop buying them.

4.) If "9 1/2 Weeks" is an R-rated movie, then "GTA: San Andreas" should be an M-rated game. It is an unfair stigmatization to label a game with that amount of nudity as "Adults Only," effectively an "X" rating for a movie, and it happened because videogames are seen as inherently more dangerous to children than movies.

5.) Two groups are failing in this ratings system: the ESRB for being stubborn about keeping it separate from movie ratings, and the adults who don't educate themselves about the rating (or better, actual content) of the games their kids are playing.

Videogames are (understandably) a big part of our household, and it seems that every Christmas I find myself in a games store, having to stop and explain to some grandparent that a game like GTA is not, in fact, a cute racing game for their 7-year-old grandson. If the box had said "Rated R," they never would have made that mistake.

GTA should not be rated AO, it should be rated M. But REALLY, it should be rated R.

[BigV]

Clodfobble,

Thank you for your clarification. I especially like the concluding sentence:

GTA should not be rated AO, it should be rated M. But REALLY, it should be rated R.

I get it, and I agree.

I judge myself to be pretty well informed in matters electronic, including games, and I have relied very little on the game rating system. I *do* see other people using in the way you'd expect it to be used, E, everyone, T, teen, etc. But I get so little from the game rating that I find it practically useless. I think all the ESRB folks are treading a fine line (I hope it's a fine line and not a big wide gray swamp) between enough action and talk and labeling to satisfy the government that they're handling it themselves, and not enough actual hard facts about content to depress consumers from hesitating to, well, consume.

For me though, they're irrelevant.

[wolf]

Ratings systems or not ... there are people in this world who are stupid enough to let their 12 year olds (and not particularly mature ones, at that) watch R rated DVDs.

This is one of those assortment of things that keeps me employed.

[SteveDallas]

Do you really think there's a direct connection? Between watching R-rated movies as a child and showing up at your place of employment, I mean.

[Brett's Honey]

My son has loved horror movies since he was ...damn, now that I think about it, he was young! - around four. He's watched every Freddie & Jason movie many times, and most horror flicks do have content that requires an R rating. I don't know if it has anything to do with losing his sister when he was five, and several other deaths (great grandma, 3 great aunts, a couple of uncles, a few pets - all before he was 8, but he's always understood the difference between TV and reality. He liked wrestling A LOT for a while, but was never one of those kids who would've body slammed a baby. He liked McGuyver, but understood he was an actor. He had a few friends who didn't seem to comprehend that as well as he did.