Slashdot Mirror
BC Scraps Mandatory Video Game Ratings
antarctican writes: "In their first intelligent move, the new government of British Columbia has scrapped
the mandatory video game rating system which was brought into effect last year. At last some sanity in this attempt to rid youth of these e-v-i-l influences.... *smirk* We can only hope others in positions of authority come to their senses too." But we must protect the children!
The movie industry is the same way. Sony/Nintendo/MS are the people who actually create the PS2/GC/Xbox discs, so they get to dictate licensing and royalties. And none of them will let you publish a console game with one of them if your game isn't ESRB rated.
The movie industry is the same way. Most theatres won't show non-MPAA rated films.
At least it's a legislative victory.
-Evan
Yet they should be fair. You mean to tell me you cannot come up with a game that would be considered innapropriate for young children?
Climb into my wayback machine.
The atari 2600 had a game named porky's. It wasn't based on porky pig it was based on a teen comedy movie that played heavily on sexualy deviant behavior. Apologies if I start sounding like the lesbo girls coach from the movie.
Anyways scene's included nudity, someone sticking their penis in a hole in the wall (only to be nearly ripped off by the female lesbo coach on the other side) and prostitution. Some of these elements were integrated into the 2600 game of the same name. It didn't look like anything XXX because the atari only did like 160x120 in 4 colors.
Take the wayback machine to present day.
The level of graphics today are coming closer and closer to reality. Now imagine a remake of porky's based on today's hardware. I wouldn't want my 6 year old nephew to play a game like that on his PS2. C'mon be real here, some material is really innapropriate for kids to see, imagine a game with japanese rape tenticle scene's in it (which I have seen DVD's of conviently placed next to the GAMES section) Video games can be just as addictive as nicotine, more so if there is japanese rape tenticle scenes and boobs involved. Sorry, don't mean to focus so much on those japanese rape tenticle scenes (sorta thing that sticks in your head once you have seen it) but I hope I made a good point.
I have a (now) 9 year old son. I used to believe that it didn't matter what was in the games he played, he would be who he was, he knew right from wrong, and reality from fantasy.
In the third grade (8yo), he was given several very violent games which he quickly mastered and played as much as he could. He also started getting in trouble at school with fighting and writing violent compositions. As a test, we took the violent games away. Within a few weeks, the violent behaviour ceased, too.
Some months later I convinced my wife to try again, to see if he went back to acting violently if we gave him his games back. It only took a week and he was in trouble at school again. We took the games away and guess what? The violent behaviour went away.
I'm not sure at what age a persons personality is fixed, but it certainly isn't for youngsters. I back the ratings systems. We rely on them. I think BC is making a mistake.
I think it is the responsibility of a child's parents, not the government, to guide children onto a good road for their life. Bureaucracy never misses a chance to miss, and whenever bureaucrats try to gain control over something, it becomes a big, inefficient and ineffective mess.
What difference does it make that a video game or music CD says "Parental Guidance" or whatever? Most folks know that movies have a rating system, and I think most of the same folks don't know that there is a similar system for other forms of media. What is the government going to do, prevent children under 18 from purchasing video games? Newsflash: That doesn't work for cigarettes or alcohol. Why should it work for video games?
Besides, if the government tries to take control over video games, to protect our youth, then the next thing you know, they'll pass a law that makes it illegal for minors under 18 to play for more than an hour on a school day or something ridiculous like that. Again, don't you think the parents should decide what their children can and can't do? That's all I'm trying to say. I don't want to argue about details, like what some rule, law, regulation--or whatever you want to call it--says. I'm just saying that in most matters, parents should be responsible for teaching their children, and once they're old enough, the children should be responsible for themselves. We don't need the government sticking their noses into yet more aspects of our lives.
Oh yeah... and yes, I do know what this story is about. I'm just trying to say that it's ridiculous that most governments have this urge to waste inordinate amounts of time and money trying to control things that really don't matter anyway.
The deal is that the ratings are often assigned by people with hardly any background in gaming. Many have never even picked up a video game controller in their life, and yet they decide what is and what isn't appropriate for millions of gamers. As more stores adopt these ratings as law, you should really be questioning this practice.
How does the ESRB rate games?
Three people are randomly chosen from a pool of 'trained' reviewers. Instead of actually playing the game to see if anything objectional is in there, these people will watch videotape footage of potentionally objectional scenes and will also review the script to a game. They then assign a rating without ever meeting each other, or actually playing the game. This kind of system leads to ratings like 'T' on Chrono Chross because it has 'suggestive elements'.
Oh? So you think that violent video games = violent behavior at school?
Have you checked in any other factors, like what kinds of friends he has at school, what kind of behavior he normally has?
This is merely little more than anecdotal evidence. Prove some real facts.
It's interesting, really.
If you looked at the papers, you'd see that people are complaining about this. Saying stuff like "The industry is ineffectual, and all this bad stuff" etc. (Well, they're partially true, but that's another matter). This is simply political - BC has a pretty whacky political environment.
Of course, what no one realizes is well, why do *PARENTS* buy these things then? Parents are the ones who carry that money to buy these games (after all, they do cost $50+, and no kid I know gets an allowance that large unless they were extremely rich [rich rich, not "Canada Rich" which is what the government calls people making > $60k/year (Canadian - probably about US$37-38k)]. So if the parent is purchasing these games, they're just as fault as the game industry. And if the kid manages to save that much money, or has a job, they're more or less mature enough already to play these games.
It's just a cheap call to avoid involvement with the child. Perhaps there should be birth licenses, since it seems these parents don't even want to take a 5 minutes to read that little tag explaining the meaning of the little game ratings down at EB or where else. Or even spending time at the computer playing (*gasp*, what a novel concept! Quality time! I should patent that!) with their child.
I see no need for ratings, simply just look at the games you are purchasing your son. Obviously you can tell the difference between a violent game and a non violent game simply by picking up the game and reading it's back. Use common sense, it's not that difficult. I still don't see the need to waste taxpayers money on paying someone to sit around and play games and decided whether they are violent or not.
--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
Just some slight criticism:
Video games DO contain some really messed up concepts. Ratine systems provide parents with info so if there IS a real threat to a young child, then the parent can prevent the interaction.
The alternatives are not as "free" as rating systems unless you are suggesting that anything that goes on a store shelf is fit for a child to get in their mind.
The bottom line I think is that the cynicism was pretty inappropriate, IMHOP. I don'thave time to research video games and I don't want to say,"Nope, no video games for you kids, you may pick up a really nasty one by mistake." They should have some video games! They should NOT have Gore-Blaster IV: Chainsaw edition.
The cynisims implys that incorrect views (or some very irresponcible views) are held by some people.
Sam
More info on the change available here -- forgive the reference, I'm feeling lazy (The Vancouver Province is a tabloid rag).
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
You can tell if it's going to be violent or nasty most of the time. If it isn't, take it away from the kid.
If you're unsure, rent it first.
BC recognises it's the parent's role to look at what their kids are playing. One person's PG might be another's R, and vice versa. Nobody should be paying for a standardized system we don't need.
Sorry, Mortal Kombat.
I applaud you.
It's not the ratings that I take offense to, it's the parents who rely on them completely who create a bad situation.
Parents should have an active involvement in what their kids are doing, and you are doing just that. You made your *own* decision.
Most parents I've seen are content to let pop culture raise their children. They're lazy. I think that's much more sick than any kind of violence in the media. It creates a bad dependence on others. When someone else takes offense to something you think your kid *should* be exposed to... Well, you know the rest.
Personally, I think that you should not let ratings define your decisions. I think you should keep making the decisions yourself.
This is exactly what the opposition to ratings is all about.
I say to you: Bravo.
I live in BC, Canada, and as far as i understood the law, it prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors. By scrapping the law, now it is the exclusive responsability of the industry to police itself.
BUT i've never quite understood how banning the sale of video games to minors would prevent them from playing the game. Wasen't that the original intent of the law -- to stop kids from playing violent games?
Yes, we only sell tobacco products to those of age. Does that prevent kids from smoking anyways? Hell no. More often then not it's in the early teens that kids start smoking.
Take it one step further - you can pirate any game online with minimal hassle. Now it's no longer a tangable, physical object to buy (like cigarettes,) but rather pirated software.
Get real. This law wouldn't stop kids from playing games. If anything, it would probably cost the game companies sales. Since little Billy Bob can't buy the game from Future Shop (now Best Buy, i guess,) his only option is to pirate it online.
Oh a wonderful job they have done you say, eh?
Let's see, hour deficit has doubled because of their premature tax cut. They're looking at breaking the contract with the nurses and rolling back their wages. They're cutting social programs left, right and centre. They're selling the province off to the private sector to pay back their corporate backers at the expense ove the working class of the province. Yeah, wonderful, turning the province into an American style capitalism, yuck.
A general strike in the province is coming, and I'm going to be there marching along side them. I'm counting the months until we can begin recalls.
Yes the NDP had become a bunch of fucknuts. However I'd gladly take them over these right wing "liberals" (read: ultra-conservatives).
Like the other day I was frustrated in heavy traffic and actually thought about locating a railgun or BFG...
Anybody want a peanut?
At that time many articles were written about how violent video games push kids to crime. After the Sept. 11 attack, I saw an article who also blamed violent video games because apparently the author believes that the gamers are reluctant to go to war because in games such as Quake and Unreal Tournament you always end up loosing at least one game.
Now for the shocking part. Please keep in mind that governments don't take their own decisions. Their decisions are based on what most of the voters want and what the pressure groups wants. In my experience, only 10% of the population is really against censorship. I thought that most slashdotters were against censorship to, but I got surprised when they were encouraging the government to stop WinXP from being published. Stop being hypocrites.
being a former salesman in retail i can say that parents sometimes dont know about the current ESRB anyway. many times parents would buy an M game only to return it an hour later because it's not appropriate for their 10 year old. (I usually followed these up with a short intro to the ESRB system, and draw their attention to the "M - Mature, Ages 18+" box)
so for some, ratings dont matter. they'll just buy, and return if's too much for their kid.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Remember the strip where Calvin's dad explained to him how they calculate the weight limit on bridges? He said they drove heavier and heavier trucks across it until it collapsed, then they rebuilt it exactly the same way and set the limit at the weight of the last truck that made it across.
Why don't we establish a video game's rating the same way? Let a control group of six year olds, seven year olds, eight year olds, etc., play the game for a month. Then set the minimum age for playing the game to one year older than the oldest child driven by the game to commit a violent and/or sexual offense.
Or would that be wrong?
If I make a game that has psychos drowning kittens, should the government deny me that right to publish my game? No, of course not. But the government should force me to put some sort of labeling on my product so that consumers are made aware of its contents. Think FDA and stuff you buy at the grocery store. You may not know what half the crap in your Velveeta is, but they tell you so if you want to become informed, you can.
psxndc
someday I'll get educatedparents.com up and we can all be done with this...
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
I think his methods, while not scientific, were a bit better than anecdotal evidence. He introduced an element, removed it, re-introduced it, and re-removed it. But if you need corroboration, as another parent, I will concur with his conclusion. My daughter watches a cartoon with someone hitting someone else, and she attempts to hit someone as well. She sees a movie with some Karate in it, and she attempts some Karate herself. It's such an obvious (and immediate, and easy to reproduce) cause-and-effect situation, that we no longer allow our kids to watch even "family" TV stations without some limitations.
People mirror their environment. It's called the "theory of social proof". It used to be called the Werther's effect. Go learn about it sometime.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
I'm surprised that video games are only ever rated according to objectionable content. They should be rated according to addictiveness as well! Becoming addicted to a fantastic game (RPGs in particular are famous for this) and ignoring schoolwork, friends, and the real world, can have just as detrimental an effect on a child as the content of the game they are playing will on them. I know I've experienced first hand what happens when one only lives to play a certain game and lets the world revolve on past....
What's in a Sig?
I understand and agree with your course of action in your presented scenario. I would just like to make sure it is understood that what happened with your child does not necessarily happen with all kids.
:-). Anyway, I've seen LOTS of martial arts movies. I've studied martial arts. Since a young age.
I grew up watching "violent" cartoons like road runner, g.i. joe and transformers as well as non-cartoons like A-Team, Kung-Fu and more.
Also, since a young age I've been a huge fan of martial arts. Jet Li is, of course, my favorite.
However, I have NEVER EVER been in a fight. I've never even hit anyone. I never will. I've never been in trouble at school for anything other than talking-back and heavy duty slacking. I'm a lazy son of a bitch, but not violent, not at all.
Anyway, just some anecdotcal evidence to provide some perspective. Have fun,
Justin Dubs
Granted - You can probably guess that Aliens Versus Predator will be a bit more greusome than the Sims, but the information on the box is not totally descriptive. It's quite useful to have a vaguely objectiveand immediate opionion on who this is suitable for
The Liberals didn't drop the rating system because they're fair-minded and principled. Rather, they view implementing it as an unnecessary nuisance of an expense. Their only moral standard is a "$", and if you take the time to observe, you'll note that they are mostly interested in the $ in their own pockets.
So, why are our coders leaving? Because they want their kids to have a good education, and they want to have health care they can count on. These guys won't get paid as well, but they've grown tired of seeing the "capitalist" U.S. fund public services in a sensible and adequate manner. A manner which is considerably more lavish than what "socialist" BC does. At the same time, they're seeing the Liberals, in a few short months, gutting what's left of the BC public services.
Washington and Oregon aren't Utopia, but they are stealing BC nurses, teachers and skilled workers by the thousands.
Amazing that no one in BC remembers what Gordon Campbell did when he was mayor of Vancouver. Oh well, as Mr. Churchill said, "people usually get exactly the kind of government they deserve"!
A witty saying is worth nothing - Voltaire
Addictiveness is not defined by isolated incident but by the way a population react to a product. Most people will react addictively (more or less depeding on their biology) but they will all react addictevly within set parameter. OTOH you are speaking of isolated incident from people which *had* particular weakness. Which is not a real indicator of addictiveness of video game. A real study would involve a big population of gamer. And seeing how those rare isolated incident are, I would guess that it would prove that video game are as addictive as reading, or other old fashioned gaming.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The main influence I've always thought children need to be protected from are people in positions of authority, especially those with an agenda and an utter disregard for the rights of others.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
What does knowing anything about gaming have to do with rating the games? They're not rating it for the quality of the game, there's no reason to compare it to other games.
Couldn't agree more.
More information is rarely a bad thing. Those who claim it is are often covering something up...
Food is FORCED to list its indgediants (I know, a SHOCKING violation of the rights slashdoters hold dear). Hope to see BC reverse its decision on this as well.
Why do so many on slashdot want to deny the right of parents to make a choice for THEIR children. Just because you like your kids doing gory MK3 finishing moves doesn't mean every kid should.
Rating make it straightforward for folks to take a look at a game and have an idea of where it falls in the violance catagory.
Mandatory ratings are not a good thing. But that's only because an industry should choose to self-regulate. Ratings are appreciated by more than just parents trying to filter their childrens' entertainment; there are people that prefer to play less violent games, or perhaps would be disturbed by sexual content, or occult symbology (if they were a religious nut or something).
Surely giving the consumer more information can never be a bad thing.
Those duck-humping wankers that were in power in BC for so long are gone. I'm not one for politics.. but those jerks screwed up *so much* in the last few years.
Now, maybe they can turn my beloved province back into somewhere I can actually work for actual reasonable money and I can move back home.
It was to regulate the sale of these items to minors.. not to regulate minors from using them.
A parent is still legally free to purchase a game for their child, and let them play it. Just as a parent is still free to take their child to an R rated movie. (Funny, though, I've seen a movie theater manager actually arguing with a lady that she shouldn't be taking her child to Terminator-2)
Regulating smoking *DOES* work. there are less teenage smokers now than there used to be.
No matter how you slice it, though, excessive regulation is a waste of money, and they are bang on. If parents can't control the video games their children play, they aren't spending enough time with their children (or their children are smart enough to do it anyway).
The original intent of the law was to prevent kids from buying the games, ie: to force the decision on the parents.
That's grossely inefficient.
You are asking every single parent to review, in full, ever single game, movie, and tv show that their child comes in contact with. It's noble, it's doable (seeing as you're probably already highly interested in what you're kids are doing), but it's grossely inefficient.
Don't get all high and mighty on me. I'm not asking that someone do my job as a parent. I'm asking that someone make my job as a parent a bit easier, so I can cook dinner instead of watching over my son's shoulder for an hour trying to figure out if the game he's playing is too violent (and that's *after* it's been bought), or hunting down a reputable review of the damn game before he buy's it.
The whole advantage to society is organization and reducing dulication of effort. You aren't helping.
He probably knows _exactly_ how they determine the maximum bridge load. He just enjoys abusing his parental authority.
Then again, Calvin isn't exactly the most attentive audience when it comes to listening to explanations. Like when he asks his dad what causes wind, and his dad answers "Trees sneezing." Calvin asks, "Really?" and his dad says, "No, but the truth is a lot more complicated." Then next panel shows Calvin saying to Hobbes, "Boy, the trees are really sneezing today."
> Just remember what the MPAA says: Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!
It's truly sad when what you thought was a funny character in South Park turns out to be real life. But yes, there really are people like that out there.
(Shameless cut-and-paste from a post of mine on another "ratings" article)
Most mindboggling thing about 9/11 - a moment where the censors just popped in raw video footage from a guy who had a handicam pointed in the right/wrong place when the second plane went in.
The reaction of the camera holder was predictable: A scream of "Holy fucking Christ!"
The news guy apologized profusely for the language. I blurted out in shock and laughter at the patent absurdity of that ("What the fuck?"), and a person next to me said, in a concerned voice, "Well, you know there might be children watching"
Yeah, lady, your crotchfruit have just spent the past three hours watching 6000 people get incinerated, crushed, and splattering on the ground like sacks of wet cement, over and over again, live and on replay on National TV, and you're worried about them being emotionally damaged by hearing naughty words?!?!
Holy fucking Christ indeed. Holy fucking Christ.
Rating systems seem never to just kinda happen. They don't even seem to happen from consumer demand - consumers seem perfectly happy to buy things without ratings, and product producers (be it movies, video games, or cheese) don't feel enough consumer demand to care.
Do you refuse to buy Velveeta because it doesn't have a cheese rating? A simple, short code to tell you what it has in it, in three letters or less? No, you read the label, look at the description of the contents IN ENGLISH and decide if you want it. Do you let somebody at the National Cheese Board decide for you if the cheese is appropriate for people with your lifestyle? No, you make the decision yourself.
Ratings systems get imposed by the government. Oh, sure, the ratings systems the United States has on video games and movies are called "voluntary", but the systems were put in place when congress told the industries "put in a ratings system or we'll regulate you." I think that's enough of a threat to scare any industry into compliance.
Now look at what happens when the ratings system gets imposed. Does the industry go on behaving normally, and simply stick the rating onto the boxes of the products they would have been making anyway? No. What happens is, they turn around and stop making anything with the highest rating.
How many movies have there been rated PG-13? Too many to count. How many were R before there was a PG-13? Too many to count. How many have been NC-17? Two. How many were X before there was an NC-17? I'd have to check, but I know it's hardly any. How many video games are on the market with the M rating? Plenty. The AO rating? I think there are one or two for the Playstation 2, and hardly any for any other system.
Is this because consumers don't want movies or games with the sort of content that comes with these ratings? No. Is it because, by nature, hardly any games or movies would get these ratings anyway? No. Look at what happened when Hollywood introduced ratings: the kinds of films they made went immediately from mostly films target marketed at adults, about the sorts of relationships adults really have, to being all gee-whiz-mom bubble-gum-and-soda-pop dumbed down unrealistic (but unobjectionable) garbage in which it was forbidden to show a toilet or a couple's bedroom with only one bed. Look at what happened when the videogame ratings were imposed: companies pulled games off the market rather than rate them.
No, the real reason is twofold: First, because the content producers know that many consumers look at the rating and DON'T THINK, and automatically reject anything with the highest rating, even if an actual inspection of the content would cause them to buy. This is because consumers regard ratings not as information but as WARNINGS, and react accordingly. Secondly, because the sort of right-wing fundamentalists who are usually the strongest backers of ratings systems get all upset if the studios produce a too heavy ratio of adult-oriented material to children's material and start calling again for the industry to be regulated.
What would an educated parent do? They'd examine the actual description and consider what they know about the actual content and, in concert with their knowledge of their child, make a determination of whether they think the material is appropriate for their child. They would understand that ratings are merely guidelines made up by some bureaucrat who is going for the lowest common denominator and carefully erring toward higher ratings, and take ratings with a huge grain of salt accordingly.
However, hardly any parents are those educated parents. Just because you understand what a rating is and how to use it doesn't mean almost anybody else does. Most people follow the ratings blindly, so an NC-17 for a movie or an AO for a video game is the kiss of death. It's the scarlet letter.
Now, explain to me how it's "not censorship" to either force a product to be labeled with something that you know from the outset will mean "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T BUY THIS" to most consumers, or to impose ratings on an industry when history shows that it will make the industry censor itself? Isn't forcing an industry to censor itself just the same as censoring it yourself?
I think it's a perfect expression of the mindset which leads to censorship through "ratings" that my original post got modded-down. I said I want to see children protected from censorship and it got labeled a "troll", but I was neither trolling nor being facetious.
As a child I wasn't really afraid of violence - I knew that I lived in a safe place and it didn't worry me. I wasn't afraid of sex, my parents had explained that and I just wasn't interested until I hit puberty. Swearing didn't bother me, my father was a marine, I grew up knowing how to swear with the best of them. But I was deeply upset that I knew that I was only getting to see such censored, filtered material as the lowest-common-denominator would approve of for me to see, and that the movies I got to see (there were no video game ratings at the time thank God) were being selected not by my parents, but by some bureaucrat who didn't know me, because my mother blindly followed the ratings system.
My parents weren't stupid, they're about as smart as parents come, but they were too culturally indoctrinated to know to question the ratings system yet. I'll never forget my first R-rated movie. My mother actually grabbed me and covered my ears when people on screen started swearing, and put her hand over my eyes when anything was happening which she guessed might lead to something she might not want me to see. She later said she was sorry and there hadn't been anything she wouldn't have let me see or hear, but she was so terrified by that R rating that she didn't feel she could take the chance.
I'd like to see today's children grow up without that foolishness. I'd like to see a generation of kids who hits 18 and is connected to the world, knows how to cope with it, and understands how adults behave. I'd like to see a generation that doesn't have to take a few years to act childish while they learn all the things their parents should have taught them instead of hiding from them. I'd like to see the censors get a taste of their own medicine.
Okay, let's pretend for a moment that you're disturbed by sexual content. You go to the movie theater, and as you're standing outside you notice that the movie they're showing is rated PG-13.
Should you see it? Does it have sexual content? How can you tell?
The ratings systems in current use don't tell you what's in the content, just what age some bureaucrat thinks it's appropriate for. That PG-13 movie could have got that rating for swearing, or violence. Or it might be all about sex.
Ratings tell you nothing at all about what is in the content the rating applies to. If you want to be able to select based on actual content factors, don't ask for ratings, ask for content descriptors. If you want encoded content descriptors - V for violence, S for sex, etc - sure, that's nice, ask for it. But don't tell me that you can successfully use ratings to find the content you want.
Neither the movie ratings system nor the video game ratings system tells you anything about the content of the material being rated.
Parents who use ratings to choose video games (or movies) are failing to fulfill their parental responsibilities: they are deligating the job of choosing content for their children to someone else. Moreover, they are allowing someone else to decide on what factors to base the decision without having any knowledge of their child.
And if you really believe that "ratings don't force anything on anyone", you're obviously not thinking about the effect it has on the people who create the material being rated. See my previous posts on the subject.
What did he do?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Congratulations, you just made my point for me.
Theaters won't show X rated movies because people won't go to X rated movies. Why won't people go to them? Because they're X rated. If they weren't X rated, would there be a market for their same content? Yup. Therefore, they're being censored.
Read my post again. Maybe you'll get it this time.
I'm not stupid enough to fail to understand that governments get involved with ratings when people start making a stink about it. What I'm saying is that ratings systems aren't an appropriate or effective way of solving the problem, and lead to censorship.
What would I do? I believe that advertising materials for films and video games should accurately reflect the content - basically, demand truth in advertising. Everyone claims they need ratings because they need to be able to know what's in the movie/game. Okay, then do something that accomplishes that. Don't use a ratings system, the ratings say absolutely nothing about the content, they just make a value judgement for you based on criteria which have nothing to do with you personally. Use a content descriptor code - like the Geek Code.
If it's rated X, they can't go to it, because theaters won't show it. Forget about studios and distributors for a minute (which is absurd, because they're an integral part of the process, but nonetheless) and just think theaters: theaters do not show X-rated movies regardless of their merits or whether the public would like them.
How is that not censorship?
And when you say:How do you know? Studios have never been willing to distribute X-rated films in this country, and theaters have never been willing to show them. With no data to work on, how can you make that assumption? That's the same excuse the studios give for not making X-rated films, and I don't believe it when they say it either.
Counterexample: Pretend a film is rated X due to sexual content, and I, as a parent, understand that my (imaginary) 16.75 year old son is mature enough to see whatever he'd like to see. Imagine I actually manage to live near the one theater in the country showing the movie.
He can't see it. The theater won't let him in, with or without me, under any circumstances.
How is *that* not censorship?