Slashdot Mirror

Check out these two PDF's from http://www.esrb.org/about/news.jsp

1: http://www.esrb.org/about/news/downloads/oblivion_ parent_advisory.5.3.06.pdf
2: http://www.esrb.org/about/news/downloads/oblivion_ release_5.3.06.pdf

You will actually see that Oblivion will now require a 'Nudity' descriptor to be placed on the box.

This is unbelievable! I've finished the game and am through my second time and not once have i EVER seen nudity!

Although... seeing 'Nudity' on the box would make me more likely to buy it. :)

http://www.esrb.org/about/contact.jsp

I am sick of people hopping onboard the ethical bandwagon when something obscure, like nipples, could possibly be exposed to our once "breast fed" children. What the ESRB did was wrong. They should have done their homework on the nudity mod before making a re-rating of the game. I have placed a complaint to the ESRB concerning this problem and I ask that anyone else who loves this game do the same.

You can submit a comment/complaint here.

Actually that's not right. The ratings on games don't match up exactly with movie ratings, but the comparisons that you gave are off. AO is the equivalent of NC-17 and X put together, M is closer to R and T is closest to PG-13 (actual descriptions are located here http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp).

I completely agree with you about parents/gparents buying T or M games for their little kids and then whining about the content. It's amazing how so many people put themselves in "harm's way" and then complain about it.

As an interesting note, last night I was out video game shopping and I was amazed at the ratio of the various rated games (I was looking at games for my nephew, the only reason that I pay attention to the ratings. My sister allows him to play any E game and some T's if she previews them first, Blockbuster really helps out there. Which pretty closely matches his age at 12). If you compare all the computer and console games, the ratio of the amount of games in each rating seem to pretty well reflect the movie industry. I didn't see any AO games, although that could be because the stores I went to didn't stock them. The majority of the games seem to fall into the T range, with a good chunk in the M range. I guess the biggest difference would be the amount of E games is a lot more percentage-wise than the number of PG movies, unless you count direct-to-dvd PG movies and then it pretty much averages out.

Not necessarily. EC is defined as being appropriate for 3 and older. E is defined as being appropriate for 6 and older. You definition of appropriate may vary, of course, but I suspect most EC games are made for toddlers. A bright 6 year old would probably get bored.

As for what's made for what console, here's the roundup for the PS2, Gamecube, and Xbox. You can find these at http://www.esrb.org/index-js.jsp where there's a rather nice search engine.

PS2 EC: 1 game
PS2 E: 567 games

Xbox EC: 0 games
Xbox E: 349 games

Gamecube EC: 1 game
Gamecube E: 306 games

Moral of this story is don't buy a console for your toddler (duh). As for the rest of the younguns, I suspect you could bankrupt yourself quite nicely for any of the systems and still stay age-appropriate.

"The government is not a parent. The game store is not a parent. This is NOT parental control. This is government as 'father knows best' for everyone. The ESRB is enough to inform parents of the content of a game just as the MPAA rates films - there is no need for government involvement."

The govt doesn't decide what games get an M-rating, the game industry does. Why should game sellers get to decide if my 14yo can buy an M-rated game? That should be my choice.

Yes, if only there was some sort of standard rating system that video games could use... http://www.esrb.org/ Maybe somebody at Take2 should just buy their own Congressman.

Thus, while I wouldn't want violent VGs marked as porn, we do want/need some sort of effective rating system.

We do have such a rating system. Hell, I'm 33, huge with a bushy beard and a register monkey at Target tried to card me when buying an M-rated game - probably because he thought it was funny, but the important thing is that the register stopped him and reminded him that the game had a "not for little kids" rating.

These videogame laws are attempting to criminalize something which I don't think should be criminal. In fact, in the case of Utah the result of their law (if it held up, which it won't) would be to make it a felony for a parent to let their minor child play GTA3 or Medal of Honor. The article doesn't contain the actual text of the amendment, but if it's as vague as they say an adult could go to jail for showing Serenity to a 17-year-old, let alone giving them a copy of Call of Duty. The Iowa law is hardly better since someone would have to determine on a case-by-case basis which games would cause a violation and the "offender" would still end up with a friggin' criminal record.

These legislators are just trying to get publicity. I doubt they truly give a rat's ass about videogame content or they would recognize that the ESRB sets some good guidelines and at least reference those standards when constructing their patently unconstitutional laws...

Maybe somebody at Take2 should just buy their own Congressman.

...and eating it too! Heaven forfend someone pick up and play one of the 5 CSI games (for three platforms mind you). The ones that have been rated by the ESRB are all rated Mature(17+) and feature healthy things like Bood and Gore, Violence, and , ooh hey, Sexual Themes if you pick up the CSI:Miami one.

Publishers are required to provide "actual videotaped footage of the game, showing the most extreme content..." http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_faqs.asp It sounds much more likely that "CJ...beating a hooker and a cop with a baseball bat" is exactly what they showed the parents.

Jack Thompson would say that the kids who got shot at Columbine weren't raised by shit parents, the kids who did the shooting were.

These are the kids who they say trained on Doom, right?

Doom (the game) was released in 1993.
The ESRB was founded in 1994.

Columbine happened in 1999, but has it been determined whether Harris (18) or Klebold (17) acquired the game, if he bought it, it was bought for him by a parent, or if it was pirated?

Until that is determined, I don't want to hear anything about ESRB self-regulation failures in the context of Columbine, because you're going to be hard pressed to find grounds for it to have been rated AO.

BTW, Doom's content ratings: USA: M (T for Game Boy Advance version) and UK: 15. You know what? Everyone can just STFU about Doom and Columbine from now on.

...which is why they say, right there under the rating, what it's rated for, just like under the rating for a movie.
 
Take a look at this.
 
We don't need a new system. We need people who understand and utilize the current system.

It's a strict reliance until I get a chance to review the game.

How do your kids submit a game to you for review?

I didn't check, is DDR rated T?

ESRB's site claims that at least Dance Dance Revolution Ultramix 2 is rated T for mild lyrics and suggestive themes. (At the time UM2 was released, there was no E10+ rating, which corresponds to the MPAA's PG. DDR Extreme 2 and Ultramix 3 are rated E10+.) Another music game was shooting for an E rating and was told by ESRB that it had to edit out the word "naked" from lyrics that went roughly "I'm all out of faith, this is how I feel, I'm cold and I am shamed, lying n*k*d on the floor."

If so, maybe the rating takes complexity into account and there's a generalization on the amount of gameplay a teen would understand over a young child. Although I did see my kids play DDR in the arcade without missing a beat early in the game.

True. My 6-year-old cousin passed every song in Dance Dance Revolution Konamix on maniac (also called hard or heavy) before his sixth birthday.

It's been widely discussed whether or not Video Games contribute to silent destruction of our society (cough cough); and it has been discussed for; oh hell let's pin it at a good fifteen years now. (As far back as the date at which red pixels could be written using Qbasic only to be portrayed as blood splatters to be precise.) And I'm not going to get into that. Whether or not it becomes regulated by some prodigal facet of the Californian government or not, software is software; and as much as we church going suburbanites would like to see our children stay far far away from any type of negative influence (regardless of how pleasurable it may be).. kids will be kids and just download it anyways. Right? Just like hanging out at the local 7-11 waiting for some scruffy to buy you cigarettes; it's point and click and you can easily download the virus infected full blown .EXE for immediate enjoyment. Tongue in cheek. To make the frightened parents happy, I suppose a few things "could" change. (To keep happy those people who will take this into serious consideration when marking the X on their ballot slip..sigh) Refer to this faq on ESRB's website. The point here that I've linked to could use some work I suppose. Revise the standards so that every game must be rated.. maybe build it into the industry standard publishing contract???? Then just blame the rest on the retailers if a restricted game is sold to a minor. That OR the parents. You know. Good 'ol family made rules. I'd vote for the latter.

...would have been to simply enforce the "AO" rating given out by the ESRB. Why invent your own sticker and everything?

I mean, it's already enforced that children in the US cannot enter a movie rated NC-17 (no one 17 or under is admitted). Why not simply implement a similar rule that children 17 or under cannot buy AO games?

Beyond that, obviously, it's up to the parents to show a little responsibility, and maybe learn what the different ESRB ratings mean. Then, they can supervise what games their kids are buying, and make informed choices as to whether or not to allow it.

The US AO rating does seem to be completly stupid, no game is ever actually rated it.

Check it out:

According to the ESRB website, there are 11,028 games rated between "Early Childhood" and "Mature".

There are 19 games rated AO, and most of those appear to be pretty out there (anybody have screenshots of Water Closet: The Forbidden Chamber?). It is impressive that GTA:SA is at the top of the list, though.

I really did try to keep an open mind listening to this interview, but this guy sounds like the type that would have applauded Midnight Cowboy getting its original X rating.

The US AO rating does seem to be completly stupid, no game is ever actually rated it.

Check it out:

According to the ESRB website, there are 11,028 games rated between "Early Childhood" and "Mature".

There are 19 games rated AO, and most of those appear to be pretty out there (anybody have screenshots of Water Closet: The Forbidden Chamber?). It is impressive that GTA:SA is at the top of the list, though.

I really did try to keep an open mind listening to this interview, but this guy sounds like the type that would have applauded Midnight Cowboy getting its original X rating.

The US AO rating does seem to be completly stupid, no game is ever actually rated it.

Check it out:

According to the ESRB website, there are 11,028 games rated between "Early Childhood" and "Mature".

There are 19 games rated AO, and most of those appear to be pretty out there (anybody have screenshots of Water Closet: The Forbidden Chamber?). It is impressive that GTA:SA is at the top of the list, though.

I really did try to keep an open mind listening to this interview, but this guy sounds like the type that would have applauded Midnight Cowboy getting its original X rating.

However, assuming that argument is true, then she did, in fact, judge that her 14-year-old could handle "Strong sexual content."

Sure, but the ESRB details on the package should list "Nudity" or "Partial nudity" separately -- especially in this case, the nudity was prolonged. If Rockstar/Take2 had disclosed the Hot Coffee segment to th ESRB, they probably would have included "Nudity."

If Rockstar -did- know the Hot Coffee code was still in there and potentially accessible to players with a modicum of savvy, then they are at fault. However, as far as I know from reading about the "mod," the most graphic thing(s) you see are naked digital breasts and "sex" such as you'd see on a late-night soft-porn movie on Showtime or Cinemax-i.e. two people going at it, but never showing more than the guy between the woman's legs and some grunting and groaning. All of which should be more than covered by the "Strong sexual content" warning.

Please see notes above, prolonged nudity is not covered by "Strong Sexual Content." http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp

Also, whether or not Rockstar/Take2 was aware of the content being included does not affect their responsibility to disclose the content. Since they distributed the game, they are responsible for all of its contents.

And regardless of what employee at Rockstar/Take2 is responsible for the content being there, the company will be held liable, not the individual, should the Court decide in Granny's favor.

It doesn't matter... It's rated for players of 17 years of age and older. Plain an simple.

To take full advantage of the ESRB rating system, it's important to check both the rating symbol (on the front of the game box) and the content descriptors (on the back of the game box).

I'll answer my own question:

Run down on the ratings system.

Yup. If the "content descriptor" didn't include the fact that there was "sexual content", grandma's got a pretty good case.

But what are her real 'damages'?

Well, the actual purpose of this law is to stop stores from carrying 'M' rated games, much as they do not carry 'AO' rated games currently. They don't carry 'AO' games because if they do, they open themselves up to legal problems, and if this law sticks, retail stores in Illinois will stop carrying 'M' rated games.

I'm not sure that I follow you. This measure will not stop stores from carrying anything. It will require a label on certian games (similar to explicit lyrics labels on music) and it will require stores to check ID's to ensure that they're not selling games to kids. While I think it's a little excessive, it will not stop stores from doing anything other than selling to minors. If this is the beginning and end of the video game legislation, I'll be pretty content.

Stores who do not carry AO games are generally the same stores who do not carry NC-17 videos...like Walmart and Blockbuster who want to retain a middle-america 'family' image. Have you noticed the parallels between the ESRB and MPAA rating systems? They're practically identical, except that they have an EC rating (for Early Childhood). Their E (everyone) is synomous with G (General Audiences). E10+ is synomous with PG. T=PG-13, M=R, and AO=NC-17. The only difference (in this case) is that video games are a new enough media that legislators can beat up on them and issue legal mandates for the rating system (unlike the MPAA/movie industry, which is a self-imposed watchdog service) until a federal court case settles the legal and constitutional issues. In this case, IL is making a law which says that "R" rated games can't be sold to kids. Again, I think that it goes just a little too far (in not letting the industry regulate itself), but it's not the end of the world.

http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp

Try reading the ratings. They have "content descriptors" that give a better idea of why a game gets the rating it gets. These usually appear on the back next to the big M and have things such as:

Blood and Gore - Depictions of blood or the mutilation of body parts

Nudity - Graphic or prolonged depictions of nudity

Strong Lyrics - Explicit and/or frequent references to profanity, sex, violence, alcohol, or drug use in music

Mature Humor - Depictions or dialogue involving "adult" humor, including sexual references

Or the more mundane, less 'Mature' ratings like:

Fantasy Violence - Violent actions of a fantasy nature, involving human or non-human characters in situations easily distinguishable from real life

Informational - Overall content of product contains data, facts, resource information, reference materials or instructional text

So in your example, the first game would get an M: Nudity - Graphic or prolonged depictions of nudity, Strong Sexual Content - Graphic references to and/or depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including nudity

Whereas the second game would get an AO, mostly because of the whole "playing the role of Hitler" part.

I'm guessing it would get the Intense Violence - Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, gore, weapons, and depictions of human injury and death tag, making it M at a minimum.

"Miami lawyer Jack Thompson is at it again, this time with something above and beyond absurd. Gamestop is reporting that Thompson has accused The Sims 2 of contain obscene material."

I suddenly asked myself this morning: what's in a rating?

The MPAA says theirs is a "Voluntary Movie Rating System", and they are assigned solely at the MPAA's discretion. G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 ... it's all a voluntary ratings system. AFAIK, it's not really enforced by law. That is, I don't know that federal law has anything that prohibits a 16-year-old from seeing an R-rated movie. Certainly, if the theater chooses not to let you to see it, you can pick it up 6 months later as a rental.

The TV ratings are TV-Y, TV-Y7, TV-Y7-FV ("fantasy violence"), TV-G, TV-PG, TV-14, TV-MA. These are all assigned by the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board, and the ratings were (originally?) intended to be used together with the V-Chip to keep children from seeing inappropriate content.

The ESRB (as we are all aware by now) assigns game ratings based on responses to questionaires by those evaluating the games (usually, adults in & around New York.) Games can be rated EC, E, E10+, T, M, AO.

Why am I listing all this? Because I started to ask myself when the madness will stop about game ratings, and how it's all about protecting the children and making it easier for parents to pick content appropriate for their kids.

Why has no one argued to apply the same standard of ratings to books? Some argue that video games should be treated differently than, say, books because video games are more interactive while books are passive entertainment. But television and movies are passive entertainment.

If the argument is that game ratings help make sure kids "aren't exposed to indecent depictions" then why not use book ratings to ensure the same thing? Just like games, books can be rated EC (Little Golden Books), E ('Peter Rabbit'), E10+ ('Harry Potter' 1-4), T ('Harry Potter' 5-6), M (Stephenson, Gibson), AO (pr0n). Why wouldn't a book ratings system like this work?

Because it feels too much like censorship, that's why. It's not censorship, but too many people would think it crosses the line.

Just a thought..

Rockstar is being made into an example for all game companies to discourage the insertion of "easter eggs" that might change the rating of the game were they enabled by default.

I would like to have some Hot Hot something with that MILF. Ouch.

Patricia, call me baby.

http://www.esrb.org/about_newsletters.asp

According to their own criteria, the game should have been AO from the beginning. http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp "Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity." The whole game is a scene of intense violence.

They have a perfectly good feedback form:

http://www.esrb.org/consumer_online_hotline.asp

I bet no one has. So they'll do it again with the next game.

Please see the ESRB ratings definitions.

First off, the SIMS has a rating of Teen. Not Everyone/Teen. No such rating exists. You can see the gamespot Sims site for confirmation of the rating: Gamespot SIMS info

The SIMS, under normal conditions, does not display nudity. If it did, it would likely have received an M rating, although the inclusion of this one "offensive" item may not have been enough to move it into that category.

The SIMS merely displays naked people when hacked. GTA: SA depicts an actual sex act. This, under the guidelines, clearly would put GTA: SA in the AO category, especially when coupled with the violence already depicted in the game.

The matter is further inflamed by the fact GTA is a game that legislators would just as soon rather had never been created in the first place, already having spawned talk of banning the game due to violence, criminal acts, and general disdain for the law. (though that didn't get far).

I'm sure a similar uproar would have occurred if there were an actual sex act explictly displayed in the SIMS, or if a sex act were "unlockable", even through a hack such as the one in GTA: SA.

I don't necessarily disagree with you that rating of the SIMS, and its sequels and expansion packs might be changed - but it seems unlikely. Even if it did, Walmart and other mainstream stores would still sell the games anyway, as they'd only have M ratings.

Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (NASDAQ: TTWO - News) announced today that the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) has changed the rating of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas on all platforms from "Mature 17+" (M) to "Adults Only 18+" (AO) because of the so-called "hot coffee mod," an unauthorized third party modification that alters the retail version of the game.

The ESRB rating system is designed to give parents the information they need to evaluate a computer or video game before making a purchasing decision. The ratings are not meant to recommend which games consumers should buy or rent or to serve as the only basis for choosing a product. Rather, parents should use the ESRB ratings in conjunction with their own tastes and standards and their individual knowledge about what's best for their kids.

ESRB recommends that parents learn about games before making a purchasing decision. Game reviews printed in newspapers and publisher web sites can be excellent sources of information. To search for games that are appropriate based on age categories and content, use our online ratings search feature.

ESRB also urges parents to talk with their children about their favorite games. Playing the games with your children helps stimulate those discussions, and playing games as a family can also be a fun way to spend time together.

Don't let Hillary Clinton advocate sweeping rules about technology she doesn't understand. Voice your opinion to ESRB Consumer Hotline yourself.

She's the head of the ESRB.


Kind of a MILF if you ask me.

http://www.esrb.org/about_newsletters.asp

Both ratings systems, video game and movie, are 100% voluntary and totally created by the industry, without legslative mandidate. The thought was if you self regulate, you can avoid the government stepping in and forcing regulation.

There are plenty of movies out there that are unrated, as in they were never submitted to the MPAA for rating. That's perfectly legal and they are sold all the time. Some are like Van Wilder, in it's orignal form the movie was to get an NC-17, so they made changes suggested by the MPAA to get an R rating. The orignal was released on DVD as an unrated film (you can also buy the R rated version if you like). Some are simply small/indie works that never bother to submit for rating. They aren't NC-17 material or anything, they just do not bother to get rated.

Likewise with videogames. The industry created the ESRB to rate games. Now they had to come up with their own system, the MPAA system is copyrighted and trademarked up the ass so only the MPAA can use it. The ESRB system is likewise, that's how they prevent people from misuing their ratings logos, it's their trademark and you'll get sued for using it without permission.

Hence the different ratings. Had they used the film ratings, the MPAA would have come after them. So they made their own manifestly similar system with different names, letters and a different logo style.

It's all voluntary, including on the part of the stores. Most stores voluntairly choose to stock only ESRB rated games. If you game is unrated the simply will decline to stock it. Also most voluntairly check ID on rated M games and refuse sale to minors. None of this is mandidated.

So stop jerking your damn knee for a second and get the facts.

http://www.filmratings.com/
http://www.esrb.org/

The ESRB Ratings (http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp) were properly applied to the published content of the game. You cannot expect the reviewers to examine content that is only accessible by modifying the game.

Rockstar should have removed the content from the game instead of just leaving it disconnected, but it's not the ESRB's fault it was hidden instead of removed.

What's next -- parents start ranting about Half-Life 2 because someone did a nude skin for Alyx? If someone creates a scripted mod that uses a video game engine to do virtual porn should the ESRB be blamed?

Here is the ESRB's list of all games that have recieved an AO rating. (I don't know how complete it is, but I Can think of no better source than the ESRB itself).

As many have noted, a game called "singles" is on there. One thing I think is noteworthy though is that you're kind of correct, there are 18 games on the list. But none of them are for a major console. Most are PC games, with one DVD game and one for CDi.

Either the likes of Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sega don't want AO games on their consoles, (possible, IMHO) or publishers simply feel that nobody will buy AO titles for a console (also possible IMHO).

There are 18 games with an AO rating.

How jaded are we that we can't even draw a line? I'm not saying I'm for or against pornographic content, but if Rockstar is going to go so far as to program a sex game (for all of you who don't know google it. there are some rather graphic videos of the game's scene), then can we not just label it AO (Adults Only) ? This is a legitimate ESRB rating. Are we against all regulation? I for one will not join this technical militia! (Insert partial sarcasm)

"Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity."

Whether or not you agree on rating systems at all can we not just agree that it has qualified for that rating all along?

Oh, and while we're at it, can we lay of the lawmakers for doing something 90% of their constituents agree with? Them's the breaks in a democratic republic.

Fr05t, you raise some interesting questions that are facing the people of the United States.

When the FTC was initially formed, it was designed to protect the US from monopolistic practices

Unfortunately since its conception it has taken a more active role in the rest of our lives. Today, it does have the authority to regulate. Unfortunately our government is growing too large, and they are trying to micromanage the peasants.

And that's the issue here. GTA is rated M, and therefore is intended to only be sold to 17+. As I understand it, the ESRB is a completely independent organization that is supposed to thoroughly test each game before they make their ratings.

While I cannot find documentation to prove it, I believe their is legislation that requires retailers to ID those who may be too young for the content, similar to the way movie theatres ID their patrons. (Do any fellow /.ers have information about this possible legislation?)

Irregardlessly, can we blame anyone for our irresponsibility when it comes to the material that comes before our kids. I am not a parent, nor do I plan on it (though my fianceé may disagree)... I will not/would not/shall not let my kid play this sort of crap. You cannot legislate good parenting.

Nor should the FTC or Senator Clinton attack Rockstar. They created a game intended for mature audience, and they succeeded at that (sales numbers will show for that). Everyone in the US should realize that this attack on a video game company is actually an attack on our freedoms.

Of course we could try to write our legislators, but what will this actually accomplish? I once read that an email is worth something like 200 voter opinions, a letter is worth 400, and a call is worth 1000. /shrug.

http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp#symbols

M is defined as "Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language."

AO is defined as "Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity."

So, how exactly does GTA:SA violate M, and why should it be in AO?

The ESRB already has a rating system. Games too sexually explicit are rated 'A' and many retailers don't carry them.

I guess that doesn't cover violence though.

Last time I checked, most video games do have ratings: E for Everyone, T for Teen, M for Mature, AO for Adults Only.

Video game companies do a really half-hearted job at setting & policing ratings, as evidenced by the number of minors who purchase the mature games (I'm not even talking about minors who have parents who buy the games for them, I'm talking about the minors). The government gave the industry a chance, and the industry has failed miserably.

Video game companies don't rate the games, the ESRB does. Also, unless kids have credit cards, they aren't buying games directly from game companies either. They're buying them from Best Buy, Walmart, GameStop, etc. Most kids don't (or at least shouldn't) have $50 pocket money to buy these games, so a lot of times, a parent is buying the rated M games for their kids. I've witnesed this on several occasions.

The whole problem really is more of a failure on the part of some parents than it is the industry. It doesn't matter what laws are passed if parents are going to continue to ignore ratings and buy their kids M rated games.

I have two teens, and my wife and I govern what movies they watch, and what games they play at our house. They don't get to play any rated M games or watch most rated R movies unless we have evaluated the game or movie first. I own GTA3, but the kids don't get to play it. I own the DVD Reservoir Dogs, but I'm not going to let the kids watch it. Those are things I get to enjoy on occasion when the kids are gone.

There's also a huge difference between 13 and 18, both being in the "Teen" rating group.

Or this. See, if it says a M, it means that it is intented to mature people. Anyone that goes out and kills people around just like in the game may not have maturity. Other cases of lack of maturity include but is not limited to sacrificing a kid like in the movie Warlock, jumping over a gap in a bridge with a bus and relating violent games to real life violence.

Or this. See, if it says a M, it means that it is intented to mature people. Anyone that goes out and kills people around just like in the game may not have maturity. Other cases of lack of maturity include but is not limited to sacrificing a kid like in the movie Warlock, jumping over a gap in a bridge with a bus and relating violent games to real life violence.

Or this. See, if it says a M, it means that it is intented to mature people. Anyone that goes out and kills people around just like in the game may not have maturity. Other cases of lack of maturity include but is not limited to sacrificing a kid like in the movie Warlock, jumping over a gap in a bridge with a bus and relating violent games to real life violence.

The problem is senator Clinton assumes that video games and children go hand in hand. This is certainly not the case. She doesn't understand that there are video games (like GTA) that are not designed for children. Adults and video games are not mutually exclusive.

The biggest issue is that most parents think the same way. Most don't bother to investigate what kind of games their chilren are playing. They assume that it's a video game so it must be designed for children.

If the government wants to fix this problem, they need to make stores enforce those ESRB ratings the same way stores and theatres honour the MPAA rating system.

All they have to do is make a law that says you can't sell M rated games to minors. That's it, then you can't say it is effecting kids, becuase kids can't get this games. Why can't they do this? Is there something wrong with the ESRB. http://www.esrb.org/

Show me a state that is doing this? Illinois isn't, they are trying to ban all types of games (not just M rated ones) with vague discrition of what is bad. Why can't they just use the esrb standard. The developers like it, the parents like, the only person who doesn't like it is the Government.

A search on google finds: ESRB Game Ratings - Game Rating & Descriptor Guide

But what happens are these ratings aren't enforced during purchase. I have here an article: Minors Buying M-Rated Games

Just like if the theaters don't enforce the rating, children can sneak in or in this case purchase video games that weren't intended for their age.

I'm sorry, but there is very little ambiguity in a label that says "MATURE 17+" placed in a conspicuous location (and yes, it is conspicuous on GTA games) right on the box. As another poster pointed out, the ESRB is doing a fine job of educating parents who pay attention. Short of coming into homes and giving parents large posters describing the ratings, there's not much else they can do.