ESRB Ratings...Get A Life!!

MissCheeba420

MissCheeba420

GreenGoody
Registered
Jun 23, 2006
59
0
0
41
Ludowici, Georgia
profiles.yahoo.com
When is it the parent’s responsibility to take control of what their child is doing in their spare time?

In the recent years the gaming industry has been hit with lawsuits and accusations that the games that are produced and intended for adults (in my eye) are causing young children to bully kids at school, fighting, cursing, and even **killing** other kids.

I think this is all wrong and no one in the gaming industry should be charged or accused for any of this, but we are. Videogames (in my opinion) was intended for the adult industry.

Yeah-yeah when "Mario" and "Frogger" was introduced into the community it did look like some kiddy play, but as society changed and technology advanced...you can clearly see that videogames are geared towards an older audience. Not only with better game play and physical graphics, but also with the way that women or female characters are dressed and flaunted in videogames. (SUCKS!!):hot:

A parent or guardian should know that an 8yr old child should not be playing Resident Evil or Black, but they still go to the saloon or Blockbuster and purchase/rent these games for their children. I used to work for Hollywood Video and I use to see parent after parent coming into the store and renting "Def Jam: Vendetta" for their son or daughter.

This issue even goes on the same line as the "Truth" ads or "JUST SAY NO" campaign. Now I do give the "Truth" ads a few props, although some of the commercials are overly exaggerated; they are still making eye-popping statements about the tobacco industry and the "war on drugs", but once again if you do not want your child to smoke crack or choke on a cancer stick...you the parent need to have a sit down with your child and explain the causes and effects for using these substances.

What are your views and opinions on ESRB rating for video games and the FTC with its choke hold on the gaming industry? Should parents be held responsible for what a child condone in or what they are playing while they are sitting in your living room? :yummy:
 
I'm not one to point any fingers at video games as the sole cause of all violence and youth crime everywhere. (Actually, you can correlate the rise in youth crime and violence with the removal of the Lord's Prayer from the public school system, but that's for another conversation). I do, however, think it IS the parents' responsibility to monitor their child's intake of media, according to that child's age and maturity level (which aren't necessarily the same thing). The ESRB ratings are a good guide for parents, and I support them. I don't want my neice or nephew to be able to walk into a store with sixty bucks and be able to purchase GTA or God of War. However, some younger kids might be well adjusted enough to play more mature games, in which case, it's still up to the parents' discretion. I could have played a game like GoW when I was 12 and not been tempted to forge a pair of Blades of Chaos for myself (I would have loved the boobies, heck, I do NOW!), but I'm glad that 12 year old's can't access these games without their parents' consent.
 
I like the ESRB rating system. As far as I can remember, the ESRB is a self-governed thing, meaning it's not a government organization, it's made up of people in the gaming industry, kinda. Like the comics code was, which is a little better than government regulation.

I'm all about not letting kids play GTA. I'm all about not letting kids buy or rent GTA. Parents have to know what's going on, but stores shouldn't be able to let the kids get these things.
 
Thanks

For the response guys. I am 23 The pocket...how about yourself?

I have no problem with the rating systems. I acutally believe they are very good addition to categorizing todays games, but when folks start pointing fingers and getting out of controll with crazy lies and rumors...it gets me fed up...I then become a crazy Cheeba *LOL*
 
Fair enough. I'm 24. I think the title of the thread threw me off as far as your position goes. I agree that video games aren't the chief problem here, but I wouldn't say they were totally innocent either. Let's face it, impressionable is impressionable, no matter what it is making the impression. Kids who mimic violence in video games (I mean beyond just playing at is, as you might with your mate in the back yard with water pistols) are victims of deep seeded emotional disturbance. The games just give them something to emulate. They could get the same from movies or television. All three of those forms of media have rating systems that are designed to keep the hard stuff away from the impressionable youth, because they might mimic it if they're particularly succeptible to that sort of thing.

The real shocker is that I was reading books that had way worse imagery than I've ever seen on a screen when I was at the young age of 13 and 14 (and I was praised for it!). I learned more about sex and violence from Dean Koontz and Stephen King than I ever have from movies and video games. Why aren't books rated? I've never even seen a book with so much as a warning that kids shouldn't read it! Lucky for me I had a good, solid upbringing and I was balanced enough to process that stuff for what it was at the time, though I can't say it hasn't shaped my sense of creativity and imagination. I'm much more twisted than anyone in my family, and it's a direct result of the media I consumed as a child. So I would spread the blame over all media (even the bloody news!), not just video games.
 
Basil, I think your twistedness must be a DIRECT result of the readings.

And remember, you weren't praised for your reading of the Hitchhiker's Guide... at least not for WHEN you were reading it.

I agree. I think BOOKS should TOTALLY have a rating system. I mean, I was honestly surprised at the amount of sex and violence there was in books I was reading in elementary school, or at age 13, 14. And it was doubly graphic because it was all left to my fertile imagination. If someone gave me a polygon laden image, or a cartoony image, or whatever, I would probably have gone, "meh", but my imagination was fueled by these books. It really is weird that books and visual art are held to a different standard than video games and other mediums.
 
It's a double standard that stems from the snootiness of "culture". Film, TV and games are not forms of "cultural" art, so they don't have immunity from censorship.

Think about it. I could probably take a kid into a play at the fringe festival that had full frontal nudity, but that's ok because it's "culture".
 
You guys are right. I know as a kid in the 5th grade and reading Beowulf kinda got my bones jumping when I used to read and see this tall, BIG, dark figure going around killing folks in the name of his land, or going to plays and seeing the story of Macbeth.

I think that our society believes that most kids do not read books and the few that do read them attain enough knowledge to know that this is just a book and to not take anything seriously. WRONG!! Books should have some type of rating system. Anything to distinguish simple reading from advance reading, but as you all stated...nothing can topple your imagination.

Cherrio-Cherrio :margarita
 
I agree with you mostly, Basil/Pocket, regarding the double-standards that differing societies place upon "culture", but the context of the art forms being discussed is important.

Take for instance, the difference in a fully nude re-telling of Shakespeare's The Tempest[/B (the film Prospero's Books)] versus an adult "gentleman's club" with lascivious stripteases...both are instances of complete nudity, and while these are extreme examples, think on the differences in what is being imparted upon the audiences in both instances of sexuality. Is there a bigger comfort level in taking a child to a Shakespearean spectacle of skin as opposed to a strip joint? Some would argue yes.

Also, while film is still subject to censorship, the medium already has reached a status of being a part of, for lack of a better term, "highbrow" culture. It took many decades to achieve this feat.

While books may contain what some individuals would consider objectionable material for certain age groups, what protects them is that a lot of people, particularly the censors themselves, don't seem to have the patience to read the "offensive" materials. Back when a school board in Maryland tried to ban "The Diary of Ann Frank" in their school libraries, one of the board members described the book as a "downer" and most of the board hadn't even read the book. Since books take time to read, the luddites of censorship often take a mulligan on attacking them focusing on Snoop Dogg lyrics, the possible hatred for Haitians inherent at Rockstar Games, or the partial nudity at E3.

Meanwhile, these same people probably applaud the prevention of the media from taking too many images of flag draped coffins of our honored service men and women being returned to the U.S. It would be too much of a 'downer' I suppose.
 
BTW, I don't agree with ratings systems in books. Unlike some of the more intelligent individuals on this forum, most people don't have the reading skills to even understand higher levels of text, so I don't think it's all that necessary to protect advanced readers as children such as Pocket, MissCheeba or myself.

Think of that society where movies are rated, television is rated, newspapers are rated and books are rated. Who controls the ratings? If it doesn't seem all that dystopian, look at the attempts by the powers-that-be to create a two-tiered Internet where the rich would have an advantage on delivering and receiving information. So, let's rate the Internet too.

Then we can start ignoring things that are unpleasant. We can interact with our wallscreens of digital friends and trust in our governments and corporations to just get everything right while firefighters burn objectionable books by the truckload. We can ignore war, drugs, sex, crime, racism, sectarian conflicts, etc....and are kids won't even have to know about the "bad" stuff, because we won't have a clue about it as well.

Apologies to Ray Bradbury.
 
Slow down there killer. Nobody said anything about banning books or porn or any of that stuff. Just restricting it by age (which is a form of censorship - I think it's that word you're taking objection to).

The ESRB is not a government program, it is the game community taking responsibility for its own material. The publishing community should do the same. As should TV and film and stage drama. The Government shouldn't HAVE to censor us, we have free speech, we should be taking responsibility for the things we say. Just remember the last words of Uncle Ben, and you'll get what I mean.
 
One of the reasons why the ESRB and MPAA can self-regulate is because of the time issue involved. A film is roughly 1 1/2 to 2 hours in length. The ESRB uses video from games (which I disagree with) instead of playing the games themselves, and that's only for a few hours.

For the publishing industry to come up with an effective ratings system, it would require every work of fiction being read by several readers while a specific list of the type of content found within would need to be drawn up and plastered on a book cover once it's published. This method would be labor-intensive, time-consuming, incredibly expensive and unfeasible for the industry. This call for the self-censorship for books would be ludicrous with the sheer volume of the different genres of books, the different approaches to audiences, and the tiny, struggling publishers having to match the larger ones just to label a book that already clearly resides under the "Young Adult" section..

That's right, books are already segregated by "age appropriateness" anyway, by bookstores and libraries. The sections are broken down by general fiction/literature, children's books, young adults and juveniles, and the various genres etc. by most purveyors of books and especially in libraries. If you disagree with Stephen King being appropriate for a 14 year old, well, that's your opinion. Other people think its okay...who makes the call?

BTW, what happens if you can't get an ESRB sticker on your game, or an MPAA rating for your movie (or get an AO or NC-17 rating respecitvely)? Well, that means Wal-Mart (and just about all retailers) won't sell your game, and your movie won't be distributed to Sony Theaters and the big cineplexes throughout the land. Not sure that level of censorship is any better than if a government body were to do it (like prior to 1968). I applaud the effort of the gaming and movie industries in trying to deflect criticism from Senators who need election-year topics to harp about, but apparently a large segment of the population continues to have problems with how they rate material.

If such a labeling process for books come to pass, I can't wait to see the "Inappropriate for Children 14 and Under due to Violence, Sexual Content and/or Adult Situations" on the Bible, the Koran, The Diary of Anne Frank, Tin Drum, Night (by Elie Wiesel), and much, much more.
 
Oh, dude, there's no way I would teach my kid about half the Bible until he was mature enough to understand the cultural context, and not to giggle too hard at what Solomon was really doing in the cave where David caught him (most translations suggest he was taking a nap, but in reality he was either taking a dump or jerking off).

And remember, my whole purpose for calling for age restrictions on all media is to put more onus on parents to take responsibility for what their children consume. I wouldn't forbid a parent from exposing a child to any literature (unless it was erotica or pornographic), if Daddy and Mommy say little 8-year-old Jimmy can read Nightmares and Dreamscapes, I say "fine!" But the result is the responsibility of Daddy and Mommy, not Mr. King or the publishing industry in general.

Understand, I'm not being self-righteous, I'm trying to exhonnorate the industry from any blame. And at the same time, maybe trying to get EVERYONE to think a little harder about just what it is they're subjecting themselves to, and producing. If the industry decides that subject matter is too hot for kids, know Wal-mart won't sell it, and wish to produce it anyway, that's cool. But it would make everyone think.
 
The Pocket said:
Oh, dude, there's no way I would teach my kid about half the Bible until he was mature enough to understand the cultural context, and not to giggle too hard at what Solomon was really doing in the cave where David caught him (most translations suggest he was taking a nap, but in reality he was either taking a dump or jerking off).
Click to expand...

Could he have done both?

Seriously, it is laudable to attempt to provide more information for the consumer to make better, informed decisions. In the case of books, I just think it's too unwieldy. How do we work out a system and make it work? Plus, where do we draw lines of age appropriateness, and should there be exceptions? Books being lengthier as a medium than either games or movies contain greater complications of how inexorably tied to the themes a situation, such as a violent altercation or a sexually explicit scene, happens to be, or should the publishing companies hold books like Morrison's Beloved, Williams' A Streetcar Named Desire, or Golding's Lord of the Flies to the same standards as we would Danielle Steele, Stephen King or Janet Evanovich?

No one has answered that to my satisfaction in regards to film, they certainly wouldn't be able to in regards to books.

As for videogames...though I love games and can see an enormous potential for the industry, they have yet to produce a socially redeeming or thematically insightful product that adds to the cultural paradigm and to the discussion on the human condition of any scale. Thus, I find it somewhat more palatable to slap a sticker on a game that says -- Rate E for Everyone :teacher:
 
You make a good argument.

I guess my problem is, parents simply don't want to take responsibility for what their kids watch/read/play. Too many parents see the television as a babysitter, and very few take the time to watch programs or play games or read books before their children are allowed to. At the very least, I would watch/read/play with my child, so that if anything questionable came up, I would be the one there to answer questions. That way, I am informed as to what my child is experiencing, and the child grows up trusting me, as opposed to the media (at least until the onset of teen rebellion).

Imposing rating systems and enforcing censorship is not my first choice of action to take. That sort of thing takes the power out of the institution of family, and puts it in the hands of organizations like corporations and states. I'd rather hang onto it myself. The trouble (as I mentioned above) is that the majority of families willingly give up that power, and so must be put under a power.

If we are free, let us be free, and in our freedom, we will perpetuate goodness. But if we are slaves to vice and laziness, then we are not free at all, and we will bow to another's power.

The freedom I just referred to is TRUE freedom, (incidentally, Biblical Freedom, the kind Jesus speaks of and offers). Most people consider freedom to be the ability to do what they want, regardless of the consequences. That's simply not the case.

Jeepers, how in the world did we get onto all this?
 
LOL!

See the funny thing is, I love my twistedness. I'm glad I was able to read the depraved stuff I read.

My parents were confident enough in their ability to provide a solid moral foundation on which I could build a seriously weird imagination.
 
The Pocket said:
LOL!

See the funny thing is, I love my twistedness. I'm glad I was able to read the depraved stuff I read.

My parents were confident enough in their ability to provide a solid moral foundation on which I could build a seriously weird imagination.
Click to expand...
How wrong they were ;)

J/k of course :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom