Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,377
- 126
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Hillary was trying to make sales of violent video games to minors a crime in NYC. Non-compliance with a voluntary rating system should be criminalized? Absolutely not.
I didn't realize they had left the content on. They did the same thing with GTA: San Andreas, spawning a massive recall when the "hot coffee" mod was discovered. I can imagine it would be hard to go in and remove everyting related to the offensive content from every directory it might exist in without removing something critical for a different section of the game... But in this age of hackery, you've got to be absolutely sure that anything accessible on the disc is kosher...
As far as ratings themselves are concerned, they are never going to be perfect. The people at the ESRB aren't playing through every video game looking for offensive content. They give a list of potentially ratable criteria to developers, have them prepare a video highligting the most violent, most profane, most sexual moments that happen in the game. Maybe a game gets a T rating, then someone discovers someone in a cutscene is smoking what could be a joint, and now it needs an M rating... The ESRB simply can't play through every game, it would take years to get anything released.
And the problem with ratings is not limited to the ESRB. The MPAA hides its rating process, to the point of threatening films that expose the identities of raters with an NC17 rating. Movies like The Bad Lieutenant get hit with an NC17 for a brief shot of Harvey Keitel's penis, but having dozens of topless women is fine for an R rating (Monty Python's Meaning of Life for example). Sex and nudity are almost always rated stricter than violence, which is a bit ludicrous; Showgirls gets an NC17 for lots of breasts, while Se7en gets an R, despite its disturbing violence. But it's not just penises or vaginas or breasts, because you see a whole lot of those in Schindler's List... still an R rating.
I guess my point here is that ratings are entirely subjective. Trying to mandate any sort of law on a subjective standard is a recipe for disaster. It does not work. What is offensive to some WASP in Texas would probably not faze me. But if she's a content rater and I'm not, her opinion suddenly holds more sway. That's nonsensical, and to legislate based off that is pointless. Ratings are meant as a guide, nothing more. Parents should take an active interest in their children's hobbies and view the content themselves to determine if it is appropriate. It is not the responsibility of the ESRB or the MPAA or any ratings board to make sure your children aren't exposed to media intended for adults.
What happens to a clerk who sells porn to a 13 year old?
I don't think it should be criminalized myself, but it is an issue that needs greater attention.