@nightwng2000:

I imagine you have a difficult time getting to a lot of games visually based on the arrangement used by the store of the moment. It's only going to get worse though if SB87 can pass through the House. I imagine the Senate will push it through again sadly to make the House stand up and take it off the calender. S2 failed so I hope that means the second attempt at passing it this year here in NC (I'm in Rowan County) still has to go through the same motions, get carried by Senate and then sent to House, etc.

sb87
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/Bills/Senate/HTML/S87v1.html
s2 http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2005&Bil...

I don't know if you read the bill itself in detail, but it would delegate all videogames they say go against the "contemporary community standards" to a ghetto in the store marked "adults only". There is no mention of which ratings are targeted leaving the door open for the state to dictate how we buy our videogames. Parents can sign off on kids getting the games or buy the title for them, but otherwise it's a Class 1 misdemeanor. This would include arcade games, kiosks of demo games, game advertising, etc. If you thought it was hard to get to your games now, just wait until there's a special section reserved in the store for games.

I worry about this being used down the road legally to usher in other limits to our freedom. Yes the law will likely get challenged and lose but it needs to be stopped before that IMO. I have a very good friend restricted to a power wheelchair who WILL be affected by this nonsense. Videogames are often what he spends a bulk of his day with besides TV when his courses are out on break. So now, he will have to somehow fit into special aisles of games designed so that youth cannot peer over the wall. For me it will be a mere discomfort. For him and many others it will be an extremely unfair necessity so that moral objections (mostly based around a sphere of religious belief of what is decent and what is offensive) can be legalized, policing parents and adults in how they may SEE let alone buy content.

In addition to being utterly vague on definitions of what content qualifies a game for the hit list, the bill even states that all games must have a rating label on them. I can understand if they meant unrated Arcade games, but they don't focus on anything, just videogames in general. Whether the State believes they are doing to begin writing up retailers for game labels that don't describe the violence the same way they would is unclear but disturbing. Their take on dispensing ratings to all who ask is also already covered well by the ESRB's posters, signs, and ratings flyers. I imagine some chains or individual stores need to do a better job of shoving ratings down parents throats like the discount cards they love peddling but I have yet to find a single clerk who couldn't explain what the big M on a box meant to a woman with a screaming child scamming the game from her.

Every incident at Wal-Mart (25% of the business game companies get by some numbers) and other vendors I saw to this effect (quite a few actually) was handled wonderfully, with the clerk making sure the parent knew how the rating meant it was not for children due to violence or content, and in some cases how they shouldn't buy the game for the child. I would rather a clerk like this upset someone over their choice than sit by and do nothing when the need arises. Instead of using public money to perhaps educate parents with the help of the ESRB and other organizations in trouble areas where we all to do a better job, they want to make a law. How fitting. I would much rather they spend the money that will be required to defend this law in court, educate the public on the law, and enforce it on such areas as oh I don't know, a Spanish version of the flyer for their high-Hispanic hubs around the state. That would ever so much cheaper. Hell, give bonuses to chains that start programs where you get spiffs if customers get ESRB info from you (have them sign a quick receipt of info retrieval) or you just general customer service in general. This sort of thing would work a lot better than sticking a law under some young clerk's nose who is already used to the drone of ratings, public acts of discourtesy, and BS from above sliding downward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_...

MPAA did use the X rating, but it was not trademarked so the porn industry was used X as well. So MPAA replaced their X rating with the NC-17 rating, kinda the same way the ESRB replaced K-A with E.

And for anyone who wants to play the "AO is not porn" card, PLEASE do some research at ESRB.org before commenting. It would be hard to convince anyone to loosen their AO restrictions if it meant potentially letting games with titles like "All Nude Nikki" on the shelf.

Archgabe,
I agree that I, as an adult, would want AO rated games accessible to me, the adult.

An interesting comparison is also being missed, though.

We know that major retailers, such as Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and even Circuit City, won't sell AO rated games. But they do sell Unrated movies. HOWEVER, they don't sell unrated adult movies/videos (in this example, I'm referring to videos such as Playboy calendar or movies that one might see on Cinemax late night).

BUT...

Non-Adult specialty stores (at least locally to me here in Wilmington, NC) such as Suncoast video HAVE sold such movies and videos as I just mentioned.

If such games as Manhunt 2 or GTA 4 were made AO rated and sold in non-adult specialty stores (I'm not sure if EB Games and such are what I'm talking about or not, something equivilant to Suncoast Video though) would not be a disappointment to me.

Of course, I'm not suggesting legislation require it. Merely a decision at the ECA and merchant/retailer levels along with the industry.

But, yeah, I can live with that. The only serious problems I ever have is when things are behind the counter, way up on a shelf, or in a case to keep me from the product. But that's because I'm very nearsighted. I already have to deal with those problems as it is. Of course, I merely make a pest of myself if the retailer does that. I don't threaten to sue. Of course, if lawmakers try to force that type of situation on retailers, then I'll threaten to sue the government for violation of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). (Ok, rant over.) :)

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

@ Scrubking

I assume from your tone that you are not one of the people whos money the ECA has 'taken.' I am. And I am comfortable with the direction it's going. Perhaps you should learn patience, or at the very least, put your money where your mouth is.

I mean, it takes a lot of balls to bitch about something an the internet, right? If you are a member, try sending Hal a note. If not, I bet he'd still respond to a note that doesn't contain insults.

What do you think the ECA should do about this? Better yet, what can it do?

Again I ask, what is the ECA officially doing about this situation, and what has the ECA officially done since they started taking people's money?????

Anyone have the balls to answer?

"Our" game systems are already porn machines. Aside from those that are able to play DVD movies. There's the whole market for "porn games" ("date sims" mostly) in places like Japan.

Fuji2001
DOOM could pass as a PG13 flick there are some R rated films that would be PG13 today (and some G that would be R), POTC2 should be a R yet its PG13 and a few other movies of its ilk are also PG13,there on the cusp of being R,games too get rated in in that way.

What I am getting at neither are really that great when it comes to rating,both rely to heavily on the feel of "the times" and can sometimes have stupid or odd ratings pick.

God Of war is a perfect exsmaple it reeks of a AO class game if you look at how AO class is described,one could think it made it under the radar because repercussions from hot coffee did not hit the fans yet,because GOW 2 is not that much different from one they gave it a M pass,I guess one can interpret the sausage making in different ways, at least its still evolving....

nightwng2000
my name links to it,I dunno i you saw my comparison chart yet.

Office of Film and Literature Classification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Film_and_Literature_Classification_(Australia)
baning and contra ban taking issues aside the Aus rating setup is very nice,it has the main levels needed for older kids/younger teens,older teens and adults as well as a porn level.
E (Exempt,could range from learning childerns shows up to PG level works of "art" or documentiers)

G (6+)
PG (6-13)
M (15+)
R18+(18+)
R18+X(Porn)

If they are adding ratings I'd just keep AO for sex and I dunno R for extreme violence and drugs. Or maybe just V for Violence. Once you start adding more letters I think it will lend itself to confusion. Gotta keep it simple. AO has too many letters as is.. "A" would be just as effective IMO.

I haven't heard it yet. Proably will later today.

But on the issue of AO versus NC-17:
My personal opinion has been to see AO as NC-17 comparison. I've played the equivilant of XXX video games, and they aren't rated by the ESRB.

The MPAA doesn't rate Adult movies (such as those by Hustler or Playboy) so they merely need the NC-17 rating for softcore adult material that goes beyond the R rating. Indeed, I can't think of a NC-17 rated movie that doesn't have erotica as the prime content (as opposed to violence).

If you really want to try a rating system that segregates violence from sex (and remember I haven't heard his opinion yet), then why not AO-X versus AO-V? Obviously, the X refering to a more sexually explicit content game (much like what one expects of NC-17 or X rated movies). And V referring to games with a more "standard" storyline/content that revolves around adult level violence. Would there be one in the future that would need a AO-XV or AO-VX? Who knows.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

@R.L. Wolfen:
"And for anyone who wants to play the “AO is not porn” card, PLEASE do some research at ESRB.org before commenting. It would be hard to convince anyone to loosen their AO restrictions if it meant potentially letting games with titles like “All Nude Nikki” on the shelf."

Actually no, it wouldn't let even one game on the shelf that a vendor didn't approve. If Nintendo and Sony for example opened up their console to actually use the device they have for just such a purpose, allowing AO titles to be licensed for release it would be all for naught without a marketplace. Wal-Mart (25% of business) wouldn't swallow it down except for a few titles. FYE/Suncoast would regardless. Fry's, Best Buy, Circuit City, BlockBuster, Hollywood Video, Meijer's, and numerous other physical store chains would decide for themselves what titles made it to them. The same would go for Internet sites stocking of said titles.

Saying that AO IS porn or in effect backing up the misnomer that AO titles deserve that treatment due to their content is only continuing a state of ignorance. There is a big difference in "potentially" and "actually". Any company that has the balls to allow AO titles will see the games sell based on how the market dictates them to be sold. This catalyst would likely in court force a lot of people to question what valued difference exists between a movie, a television show, and a video game. It would force the ratings discrepancies issue to be figured out a LOT quicker than it is now, as well as force the hand on whether to give or deny videogames intellectual freedoms other media forms long ago won in court.

Nintendo has said before that they in part disallow AO titles so that they can make sure without a doubt that no adult material in game form makes it into the hands of children. That's fine so long as they can always make enough money off their youth market before a) losing %'s of their adult market to competitors who don't follow that creed, b) losing developers to other consoles due to restrictions placed on gameplay. They have to keep up with all fronts of game software without missing out on the real world of the game industry. This "realism" quotient and "control" issue is only going to grow as videogames continue their spiral from their Odyssey birthplace to untold vistas beyond.

In the end, market conditions and customer/developer desires will outweigh moral objections either by way of revised ratings (splitting the AO into violence and smut categories) or actual support for the next bracket up. It all depends on the weight of ratings to come, namely how many AO games hit the windshield that aren't smut but watered down Hollywood gore. I personally hope more come out to force the issue. I'm tired of seeing blatant biased self-serving comments and quotes come out of talking heads just as much as I get sick of a game industry without a backbone to defend themselves in a society that won't fight for them. This isn't civil rights or voting rights where your movement will be carried by the fairness of its citizens. It's a fight that will take a lot longer to win if their hands are tied by unfair and unfounded legislation, console makers pushing adult software while flipping their face to a childish persona as needed, and opponents who have their victories won for them out of fear.