Halo-in-Church Controversy Points Out Flaw in ESRB Rating System
Halo-in-Church Controversy Points Out Flaw in ESRB Rating System
October 14, 2007
From the New York Times on down, newspapers and bloggers - including GamePolitics - have had a field day recently with the news that some Christian youth ministers are using Microsoft's best-selling Halo series to attract teens to church.The major point of contention for critics seems to be that, since the Halo games are rated M (17 and older) by the ESRB, they are inappropriate for use by church youth groups.
The problem with that logic is that the M rating encompasses too wide a variety of games, including some military shooters as well as other titles with clear good vs. evil themes, like Halo.
Also included in the M's broad swath are games with less lofty ideals such as the Grand Theft Auto titles, the ridiculously gory Manhunt series, and controversial offerings like last year's 25 to Life, which featured violence against police officers.
When you look at it like that, it's hard to blame those who criticize bringing Halo into sacred space. For the most part the critics are not gamers and have no concept of the vast difference between Halo and GTA. All they know is that the games share a common M rating, a designation assigned by the game industry itself, theoretically for the protection of impressionable youth.
For the uninitiated it's only logical to assume the content must be of a similar character as well. As somone who has played both, I'd argue that there is a world of difference between Halo and GTA. In fact, as a parent I saw Halo as digital cops-and-robbers with the player in the role of the good guy. I let my sons play it at 12 and 13. Anecdotally, I can say that a lot of their friends were allowed to play at that age as well.
On the other hand, GTA was always verboten. I never wanted to expose my kids to the pretend hardcore criminality. And Manhunt? Fuhgeddaboudit...
Now that they are older, I'd be okay with GTA, but so far there's no interest. World of Warcraft and Neverwinter Nights 2 are the games of choice lately at GP HQ.
So what's the solution?
There are those who have called for an AO (18+) rating that means something other than a de facto sales ban. Under that scenario, perhaps GTA is an AO while Halo is an M.
On the other hand, M is currently the most serious marketable rating, but leaves in its wake a four-year gap to the next lower step, T (13 and older). As any parent can tell you, from 13 to 17 is a huge span, developmentally.
There are those who argue for something similar to the U.K.'s 15+ rating. Would the critics object if church youth leaders were exposing their young congregants to a game cleared for 15-year-olds?
They might, but probably with less force. And, they'd be making their case without the industry's own flawed rating system to back them up.
As the differences between games become increasingly nuanced, the ESRB really needs to look into fine-tuning its system to better meet the needs of those who must make game choices for adolescents.
Comments
True, although I'm actually inclined to agree with Jack. Church is spiritual time, and if you want to play Halo 3 you can wait until you get home.
What he fails to realizes is that children don't want to sit in church all mornings on a week day, they dont want to listen to an old man "prattle on" they want something interesting to do. In a world where every 3rd child is probably on ritalin because the parents are too afraid to discipline their children fearing state reprisals, if they're not going to obey they're parents, children are as sure as hell not going to listen to a stranger. The church is growing to adapt to the youth of this generation. Pity Jack wont...
Church is about religion. Its not really a place for computer games. Especially using them as some sort of bribe to bring someone into religion. You are either religious or you aren't... You shouldn't wave Halo under someones nose then whilst there eyes are fixed on the game, fill their ears with preaching.
Very well Jack, by that logic, church groups should not organize baseball games, soccer matches, BBQ's, or any other get together that doesn't involve reading the bible and prayer. Now, it may have been a while for you, but most pre-teens and teens I know don't want to spend their weekends being taught about damnation and hell fire (an extreme example mind you).
You say that video games teach people to kill. The same thing can be said for groups that do things such as martial arts to teach troubled kids self respect and self discipline. Yes, they are fighting techniques, however there is more to them than just learning to throw punches and kick, or what not. The most valuable lesson I learned when I was a Civil Air Patrol Cadet is that the group cannot exist with the individual, and without the group the individual cannot support themself. This lesson was learned the hard way on a military confidence course that required us to work as a team and put aside any petty squabbles we may have had.
Much of these gathering have one thing in common, and that is the feeling on comradery. Whether it's a karate dojo, a fencing salle, a boxing ring, or a lan party you feel like part of something, joke around with people, and in the end respect them even if you lost.
The simple fact is that people like Jack Thompson are so deluded in their own self-righteousness that they fail to see the good before them, because it doesn't fit in the mold of their narrow perception. The fact that an event like this brought together people who may have never know one another before, let them have a good time, laugh, celebrate and make friends says more than any half-baked theory that this Florida lawyer may conjure.
It's not stupidity or insanity that Jack suffers from, its an even worse disease; petty narrow mindedness.
2. Halo 3.. Believe.. in Christ.
3. Rated H for Holy.. Will see as much use as the AO rating.
4. Newflash: Church intended for sinners, not saints.
5. This is just like modern sex ed.. The adults should be embarrassed to talk about it, since the kids have much more experience than they do.
Oh yeah, there's a flip side to my statement..
I would be more inclined to see Halo like star wars, and Manhunt like Saw, in the movie world, one is pg(-13), and the other is R, in the game world, they share the same rating? I don't get it.
They are All PG with the exeption of Episode 3. the violence level in halo and star wars seems about equivalent to me (maybe slightly more, but not a lot)
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/SearchClassifiedWorks/?SearchView&Query=(%20[Title]%20contains%20%22STAR%20WARS%22)%20and%20((%20[TypeOfMedia]%20contains%20Film)%20OR%20(%20[TypeOfMedia]%20contains%20Video))&SearchMax=50
Yup, in the UK most of them were rated U.
Go to BBFC.CO.UK and search for Star Wars ;)
Of course, this works the opposite way too and with probably even worse ramifications- a parent will see their child play a game like Halo or Time Splitters and assume that all M-rated games are similiar, then go out and buy their kid Grand Theft Auto or Manhunt without looking into the games any further. A ridiculous number of my friends' parents did this.
I would say that a good solution would be to add an OT 15+ category in which less violent and/or morally unsound games would be taken from M and added to, and change M to simply 17+ in order to distinguish it from current M-rated games, which would encompass the new OT games as well. I would not be opposed to a law requiring license in order to purchase a 17+ game.
Why am I here all by myself? It's lonely here in the middle.
The trouble is defining that one title is or isn't as bad as a GTA and its ilk can be quite trying at times. Not too mention some games are either underrated, or (more frequently) overrated in terms of content classification.
Personally, I never understood why the Longest Journey and its sequel Dreamfall (the latter of the two being one of my very favorite titles) ever got the M rating. The former was rated M exclusively for swearing. EXCLUSIVELY. The sequel had swearing (though not nearly as much) and a bit of violence too, which was about as far removed as the goriest M games could ever manage to give you.
Clearly we need more room for distinction
excellent comment and i agree with most of it. the only problem i have is that i would oppose any kind of government involvement, but there is already a retailer standard in place (at least here in the U.S.) that requires an ID check at the point of sale for games rated M or higher. call me paranoid, but imo, any kind of government involvement and/or regulation is a stepping stone to a chilling effect and possibly even censorship.
But in my opinion, a clear difference must be made between the different contexts in which violence occurs : is it fantasy ? Sci-Fi ? Historic (WWII, medieval) ? Or modern urban ghetto ? Plus, a better difference could be made between the different kinds of violence : does the context fully justify this violence ? (for instance, in WWII games) Isn't the context enough to justify it ? (for example, in "Soldier of Fortune") Or does the context simply aggravate it ? (for example, crime in GTA-like towns, or Mahunt-like executions)
These differences between different violences and different contexts could be made in rating system. But above all, the public must be able to perceive them.
Step 2) Make a 15+ rating
Step 3) Start gloating about your improved system
And that's how to fix the ESRB. As it stands now it is a flawed system.
apart from the legal backing, 18/15 is the same as our setup here in the UK, I find its a good bracketing distinction.
and for reference, I'm pretty sure Halo 3 did make 15.
It may be an industry standard, but since it's not legally binding many workers at big-chain retailers don't take it seriously (not so much the major game-specific retailers, who will at least warn and often fire an employee for selling an M game without a license) This is a major point of video game critics like Jack Thomson, and an industry-supported law requiring ID would show that the industry is serious about this issue, as well as allowing politicians a chance to jump on the "protect-the-children" bandwagon without harming people who are old enough to make their own decisions.
Halo3 is rated as 16+, while a game like Manhunt is rated 18+. But here is the thing: Why is the ESRB being seen as the best way in rating games, while the console producers do not want AO rated games on their system. Yet, PEGI list pretty much any game that features gore as 18+.
I think console makers should stop using their stance against the AO rating, and allow these games on their consoles.
But I do agree that there are many kinds of M.
Hl2 would be on in the middle. halo near the M boardering Teen, And The darkness would be closer to A.
Now that I'm done ranting, I think that rather than a tiered rating system, the real key is those content descriptors. Why tell parents their children aren't old enough, when you should tell them what they'll be exposing them to and let them make the decision themselves (in most cases, including you GP, they already do). Full frontal nudity and sex, religious themes, exorbitant gore and violence, and others would be in red ink instead of black, and require ID to buy them. It'd be more similar to how books are checked (reading difficulty and theme) and give more power to the parents.
Just my $3.25 worth.
Case in point: A parent goes out to a video game store and sees Halo 3 and Manhunt 2 on the shelf. Halo 3's case states a battle of good versus evil, a battle were humanity's last hope must protect the Earth against aliens (I don't know if that is the actual plot, never played the games, so bite me if I'm wrong) whereas Manhunt 2 has a deranged serial killer murdering people as its selling point. Now, in an ideal world, the parent would use this newfound device, COMMON SENSE, to decide whether either title is suitable for their child.
However, in the real world, parent is stupid and buys games clearly not intended for children for their kids and then bitches when it turns out the game revolves around killing people with graphic violence.
Someday I wish to pioneer this common sense both in America and around the world and hopefully, we can live in a world where people will use common sense in making obvious day-to-day decisions, such as not buying unsuitable material for kids, not doing up their laces in a doorway, and, perhaps, if we're lucky, not vote Republican, although case studies have shown that incredibly stupid people are unable to grasp common sense, so we might have no hope whatsoever on that last point.
There are ratings for music: non explicit lyrics and explicit lyrics.
@ las, attorney
Given the political climate, common sense wouldn't have you voting either Republican nor Democrat. They are both just as bad as the other. Given the fact that Hilary will get the nomination for Democrats, I'd rather vote Republican, especially if its Ron Paul (hell, if he gets the nomination for Republicans, I would vote for him no matter what).
Those are descriptors, they don't tell you how old you should be to listen to them, just what they have.
In Florida, don't know if this nationwide or just store policy, but you couldn't buy explicit lyric CDs unless you were 16.
I don't understand that. Your saying that games like GTA should be banned because they're for 18+?
That's fair, stores always have the right to refuse service. No one will argue that. But the fact of the matter is that an explicit lyric descriptor doesn't say what age they have to sell towards. The problem with an age specific rating system is in person-to-person maturity. I know a lot of teenagers that listen to music with explicit content. It's up to personal opinion whether or not they were old enough, but as far as I know they aren't acting on things they see and hear in music and movies. With specific age ratings however, it isn't up to personal opinion. A group of people decided that this game, movie or show is for people THIS old. In reality, only select things should be censored to specific age groups, and that's things we know should only be viewed by adults... we're talking enough nudity to be porn and enough blood to be snuff. Otherwise it should be up to the parents, and the parents alone to decide what's right for their kids at what age.
But if that was the case, there would be so much less rhetoric to spew, wouldn't there?
And we can't have that now, can we?
If the US adopted the 15+ rule then M17 could be treated like a R and not a obscure PG17............
I also like the point made in the article over where Halo stands in the M rated game area. So many people were calling foul for Halo in church when this game is so different from GTA. Plus some have already discussed the logic in gamers buying games for their children. I liked the LEGO format which was (Fantasy or Sci-fi is okay, but NO realistic) which is why there are no legitamit gang legos or army legos.
Part of the problem is that people like Yee and Thompson are working to an agenda, it's not about introducing any real parental help or assisting the ESRB in getting the system working in a way that helps parents in some way, it's more about using 'The Children' as an excuse to grasp power and ignore the 1st Amendment. Regardless of what the ESRB change, they will always find reason to complain, they don't want the problems fixed, they simply want more power.
Let' face it, no rating system is perfect. Hell, I dont even think any rating system in existence is even GOOD at its job, and the best only barely make the cut. But it's not their fault - rating systems have to be both comprehensive and idiot-proof - SIMULTANEOUSLY. They have to list every kind of possibly objectional content in the game/movie/etc., and ALSO slap a simple label on it so that those unfamiliar with the system can make some sort of judgment. Not to mention that, in the case of games, they have to do this based on video clips of the game provided by the developer, considering that playing evey game fully would be impossile, even without the poblems of user-created content, etc. It's horribly paradoxical, and I'm actually surprised that the ESRB, PEGI, and all the other game rating systems have handled the job as well as they have.
Also consider that the MPAA ratings system fails miserably by pretty much any standard - and they have a MUCH easier medium to rate. Compared to them, the ESRB is dong great.
The phrase "18+" or "Adult" with regards to media in America is associated with pornographic materials, it's part of our culture. Thus, you'd probably have to go with 17+. I would say that it should just be called 17+ instead of M, both to make it clear that the game is not for children, and to make it clear that the 17+ rating is not the same as the old M (So that parents would be less likely to continue buying their child M rated games thinking they were like Halo)
(i know several of you have allready made this point but i feel it needs to be repeated)
Why would religious themes require an ID? That makes no sense. Just because your game has a strong theology in it makes it bad?
Please expand.
As for all this, I can support a middle rating between T and M.
@ Brokenscope
I would rather them selectively license games rather than blanket ban a whole spectrum of games. In a selective license situation, The console companies can refuse a straight up porn game but let the unedited version of Manhunt 2 through.
I do agree that the ESRB needs a new rating stronger then M so the simple minded critics won't be confused that an "M" rated game means that it is some hard core violent porno game. The gamers understand that there's a difference between GTA and Halo, and so do alot of Parents. So is it really that big of a deal if teenagers are playing Halo at youth group? I see no problem with it as long as their parents give approval.
Jack, with all the anti-christian sentiment perpetuated by people like Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, and yourself, it's no wonder that Jesus isn't as appealing as he used to be. If you want to go around like a mormon, saying "Hi, we're here to tell you about our religion", go ahead, but it NEVER works.
If you use Halo to get the youth to actually want to LISTEN to what you have to say, instead of shunning you, is that so wrong?
Jesus said "We are fishers of men." He did NOT say "We are fishers of men, but we can't use bait that Jack Thompson does not approve of."
Sorry for the long winded post.
Also,
CIVILITY!
First, lemme say this. I feel the AO rating, as it's currently used, is pointless and should be discarded, completely. It should be replaced by a rating that is actually a Rating, not a banhammer.
I'd be all for an older rating on the condition that it was placed on the shelves with the rest of the games. seperating it from the other games would defeat the purpose, not to mention give certain people a reason to claim the ratings an admission of guilt.
I'm big on the idea of more mature game, but only so long as the games themselves are more then just shock value and are actually good games.
Personally, i'm the type of guy who would like a really violent action game like manhunt to be rated 18 or something so that a game can push the limits and still be sold. Otherwise games won't evolve as an art form if they aren't allowed to push the limits.
Anyway, thats just my opinion is all.
The solution is that church groups are to be about Christ, not Master Chief. Pretty simple, really.
Whilst I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment, it should also be borne in mind that people aren't suggesting in the slightest that in some wierd way Master Chief is the new christ or anything, what they are suggesting is that in order to communicate with modern people, you need modern methods.
Now, believe it or not, I actually don't think that Halo is the thing to do it with, not because of the violence, I played enough physically violent games as part of a church group to not be bothered by that, but more around the fact that people would be turning up for the game, not for the religion
Religion as a whole has a problem with change, many of them struggle to adapt to the world they exist in. It's a difficult challenge, how do you make ancient words compatible with modern thinking? Often this is done merely by claiming that 'modern thinking' is at fault and we should all go back to the way we used to be 2000 years ago, personally, I'm inclined to disagree with that ideal, but if religion is to carry forward it's message meaningfully, then they obviously have to adhere to the ideals that they were formed on.
Halo, I think, is not the way to go, it's a 'gimmick', but if religion wants to reach out to people in a more modern context, then it's needs to be less judgemental and more understanding, which, oddly enough, was exactly what was preached by Christ.
And you wonder why churchs are rapidly seeing there followings drop in the modern world? Church is boring, depressing, and often dishearting, and modern people, especially in america, are getting tired of it all.
Halo is in my opinion and excellent way to make the message of faith relevant to a group that does not normally have an intrest in such things as faith.
When faith finds itself becoming irrelevant, it must do what it has to, including using halo, to regain that relevance.
Course, a self serving parasite like you, probably doesn't get that.
Then we really should get rid of church softball leagues also. Church should be about Christ and not sports eh?
Just because another game overshoots the minimum doesn't mean it doesn't fit in that category. AO is useless so M is for everything from Halo on up.
Besides, here's the back of the box:
Halo 3 - "Blood and Gore, Mild Language, Violence"
GTA:SA - "Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs"
So yeah, as long as games are marked appropriately I don't see why they can't carry the same rating even if they are completely different content wise.
After all, both "Hudson Hawk" and "Hostel" are rated R.
Andrew Eisen
correct me if I am misunderstanding (I don't go to church)
but I was under the impression that the Halo time wasn't in the middle of mass, but a separately scheduled event, designed to for people to make friends and a chance for them to get to know the pastor/ priest/whatever, who could then encourage them to come to the service, which IS about Christ.
"The solution is that church groups are to be about Christ, not Master Chief. Pretty simple, really."
I'm actually agreeing on that part with JT. And I'm an atheist !
I know, odd isn't it? Am I alone in noticing that since his hearing last week, Jack has, to a degree, been moderately polite in here? It's been like a breath of fresh air, I must admit.
He still slips up on occasion with blanket statements and offensive complaints about offensiveness, but he's trying at least.
You have a point there, guess I didn't think about it that way. You're right, they probably don't play it during mass or anything, in which I don't reall y see much of a problem (besides the fact that it's technically rated M, even though Halo has always seemed like more of a T game to me.)
Sorry if all that didn't make much sense...I don't post long things very often
I recognize your point about non-gamers not understanding the nuances, but I like to think education is the answer here. The flaw with the ESRB is that they've got no AO that isn't a ban. That's it. And this isn't really just the ESRB's issue, you've got retailers and console providers that are to blame, too.
If retailers and console makers tried to ban games based on rating, then yes GTA would be banned because it now has the same rating that's used for porn and such. With the use of an M15 rating, the M18 ratings would need to cover anything that the M15 doesn't cover (ages 16, 17), thus forcing the rating to be used much more leniently. while Porn and the orginal Manhunt2 still fall into that rating, games like GTA and god of war would also fall under tha same rating; try to ban the M18 rating to get rid of porn and such, and you will also end up banning all the games that you DO want. The only way the console makers and retialers can keep the games they want and ban what they don't want is for them to judge on a game by game basis, instead of banning the whole rating... as a result, the M18 rating would not be a death sentence like the AO rating is...
it's basically getting rid of the AO rating and having only the M rating(though up from 17 to 18), but also making a new M15 rating for stuff that is above T but clearly below M (Halo)... y'know, that's probably how i should have phrased it in the first place; much simpiler
- Ask for identification for people wh appear to be
You blockhead. It's revealed in the ending of Halo 3 that Master Chief IS Christ resurrected as a badass super solider.
On the issue itself, that the M rating is not accurate, I agree. I also think that Film Ratings are not entirely accurate as to Film content. But I also do not think that content should be based entirely on age.
The purpose of a rating system is to identify what is in a product that is to be viewed or played. Every individual decides for themselves what they want to watch or not watch. Rating is a tool to make that selection easier. The same with descriptors like genre.
We use age because age is easy to grasp, but it is not accurate. We use age because of what people learn at various ages.
At around 7-9 (11 at the latest) children learn about death and accept that it is permanent. A rating with a violence descriptor today differentiates only between violence against human-like opponents and those against human like opponents and whether or not someone dies. If enemies are not actually killed or destroyed, they are just beaten then it may be acceptable for preteens. At age 13+(Grade 7+) students learn about war and combat and accept that it happens in the world. Games are rating Teen or the like if violence involves destroying enemies, but not realistically. Megaman destroys machine enemies, but they are not people and most of them are not human. Teen is a rating reserved for violence with obvious consequences, permanent death. FF XI and WoW has such ratings because although there is such death, the dead just disappear. Only when the violence involves blood, the one descriptor of its truth is the video game M rated.
At 12(Grade 6), children learn about sex and how it works. When people start having sex past that varies from person to person and family to family, but it isn't until 18 that sex becomes socially acceptable to the majority in our culture. Vulgar Language is outlawed to anyone under 18 and every medium of communication is assumed to be under the prying eyes of minors.
I think that content descriptors for these 3 factors and others should be used instead of age because I know people who don't like sex in media, but don't care about violence or vice versa or with language.
You know the ones, "You can see sex or blood, but don't swear in front of me."
I think I've run out of room for a response, so that's all I have for now.
October 14th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
The solution is that church groups are to be about Christ, not Master Chief. Pretty simple, really.
Well yes, but you seem to be thinking that the church has replaced Christ with Master Chief. Really it's just a social activity. Now if the church were using something like Manhunt to attract teens I can see where the problem is.
I honestly think the 'Church using a M game' being quite silly, it honestly doesn't matter. They might as well criticize the old testament for being too violent.
I say we have plenty of ratings already. Halo just got the wrong one.
Every parent who cares about what their children are watching thinks they know what's best for those children, even when they're wrong. The best the ESRB can hope for right now is to reflect "popular opinion" about a game's age-appropriateness, even if, as with individual opinion, there is little support for it.
How many potential buyers would think "T? Booooring! Now, M, THAT'S the ticket!"
I understand that it is an issue in the movie biz - the rating comes back to low and no one will likely go to see it. Stick in a few rude words, maybe some low-level nudity or 'adult gags' and the audience numbers go up with the rating.
I can see some game developers seeing a T15 rating as another 'kiss of death' rating - not cool enough for the majority of gamers. ;)
ever hear of a parable? It's a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson. With all the religious references, Halo is an example of a parable. Jesus himself told fictional parables to get followers and explain moral lessons, does that make him a liar?
I never saw anything implying the church was replacing anything with a game character.
Screenit.com is a great resource for movies I like to use. It's immensely detailed, but as a parent, I love it. Game reviews are everywhere as well.
I believe parental involvement is the key. It's not easy. It takes time. It takes research. We have to lose our selfish lives. We're taking the responsibility to raise our kids...not their friends, not their teachers or government or a local church.
As a youth pastor, I dealt with a lot of parents that had zero influence in their kids lives. Then, these parents, when lovingly confronted to be more involved would imply, "That's what we're paying you for." No way. A caring pastor is a shallow replacement for a loving, involved parent.
Parents, share you wisdom. Do you know the difference between murder and killing? Do you know when violence is wrong or when it's necessary? Do you know the difference between love and lust? Do you know what makes commitments last?
Lead your kids, because Big Brother will never be capable of it.
Sometimes I wonder what the ratings system would be like if we had the M15, an M18 and instead of AO there was a 'P' or 'X' rating for pornographic games. What would have happened if they gave Manhunt2 a 'P' under that system? As it stands AO basically equates to such yet its vague enough to slide extreme violence under its label. The rating does say "Prolonged scenes of intense violence" but thats just a little subjective. Especially in interactive environments.
Basically,he expects the world to adapt ot him instead of him adapting to the world.
You was talking about the rating process due to the violence.
The pile of videos of the uncut version of Manhunt 2 I seen shows alot of the killings including the red killings and most was not worse than alot of the red killings in Manhunt 1.
If the esrb is not for censoring video games, then they would allow games like Manhunt 2 to get the M rating by telling Rockstar Games that they need to put a big warning on the front cover like Conker: Live and Reloaded did. I feel that the warning on the front cover like Conker: Live and Reloaded had would be more effective than the AO on the box.
The esrb needs to stop violating the 1st amendment and give the uncut versions of games like Manhunt 2 the M rating if the warning was on the front cover.
"Teen is a rating reserved for violence with obvious consequences, permanent death."
Why should characters being killed require a T rating? I'd say there's "violence with obvious consequences and permanent death" in G-rated Disney movies (granted, said death is usually by a fall or otherwise out of sight), so there would seem to be a major disconnect if that were the case.
@Ace of Sevens:
"Apparently, you only get away with killing humans in a T if it’s totally bloodless, which seems like a very odd standard."
...but if that's the case... what was I seeing in that Heavenly Sword demo?
Maybe the problem was that the game let you shoot your allies in a not-bloodless way?
@spartanmichael:
"The killings in the bible make the killings in manhunt 2 look very tame after seeing alot of videos of the uncut version of manhunt 2 and yet the bible is taught to very young children."
There's a bit of a difference between non-descriptive text and video, though. It's a lot worse to show a video in which a character is stabbed through the chest with a sword and dies painfully than to write that "[character] was stabbed through the chest, put on a rack, drawn and quartered, and left out for the birds to eat," even though the second is a whole heck of a lot more violent.
Plus, no one actually teaches the very young children the violent parts of the Bible in any kind of detail beyond "David hit Goliath in the head with a rock from a slingshot and won the battle" anyway, so it's not really a fair comparison.
I agree about the T-15 rating idea, though. Having an extra rating would probably only help matters. An alternative could be an M-C rating, for Mature-Context, which would encompass games like GTA and Manhunt where the context for the violence is questionable.
The first amendment is for the government.
"The esrb needs to stop violating the 1st amendment and give the uncut versions of games like Manhunt 2 the M rating if the warning was on the front cover. "
Please don't start again. The last time you said the ESRB was infringing on our 1st Amendment rights you were shredded by EZK, me, and about three others (you never responded, by the way). This time, you're making even less sense. The ESRB rates games based on certain criteria just as any other ratings board. If they judge Manhunt 2 to be AO, are you really telling me that making a larger disclaimer on the box would justify changing the rating to M? The content is STILL THE SAME.
It seems that the world has still not yet adapted to rating video games properly.
"The solution is that church groups are to be about Christ, not Master Chief. Pretty simple, really. "
Even though I'm not religious, I do agree that it is kind of a cheap attention toy.
It seems to me like your the one that makes no sense. The esrb are the ones in charge of rating games. The rating decides the fate of being able to be on systems and in stores. Manhunt 2 got rated AO for violence instead of extreme sexuality. I even seen alot of videos for the uncut version of the leaked game and the violence was not even that extreme to getting a rating that would cause the game to be censored. And guess what, it does not even matter how extreme the violence is because the game company should have the right to sell the game with an acceptable rating.
It seems to me like I make alot more sense than you do.
You just don't get it. The console makers and retailers have set the conditions that result in the ESRB ratings having the significance they do. If the Big Three license AO games and the retailers agree to sell them, we're not even having this conversation.
"...the violence was not even that extreme to getting a rating that would cause the game to be censored."
Oh, I'm sorry, do you work for the ESRB? Are you familiar with their guidelines? Just because your idea of what violence is or isn't acceptable for an M rating doesn't mean that the ESRB should follow suit.
"...it does not even matter how extreme the violence is because the game company should have the right to sell the game with an acceptable rating."
As inane as this statement is, I'll humor you for the moment: they DO have the right to sell the games...just not on the consoles which don't allow AO, and not through retailers that won't carry them.
I asked you this before and you didn't answer so I'll ask again: what does the ESRB have to gain by de facto censorship? If they're censoring games on purpose there must be a reason, right? So what is it? And don't say they get the watchdog groups off their backs, you and I both know the anti-game crowd will never be satisfied until violent games are wiped out.
To answer your question, there is a few reasons why the esrb would try to violate our 1st amendment right with the AO rating for games that only have violence.
1. Actually the trouble making groups could of had an impact because the people in charge at the esrb would not want to deal with those groups pounding on them with letters, the media and etc.
2. There could be people working for the esrb that would have views similar to people like Jack Thompson and would only let games get to a certain amount of violence before giving the game a rating meant for porographic games.
3. Some of the people working there could be parents that would think that the material is to extreme for kids so they violate the 1st amendment by giving the game the AO rating where the uncut game will not make it on the game systems.
4. They are afraid that lawsuites will be filed on them along with the game company for giving the uncut game a rating that will allow it on game systems if a violent act happens.
There is some of the very possible answers.
There is so many answers as to why video games have no effect that causes violence.
No matter what happens, the game companies have the right to get a rating that allows the game to be on the game systems.
1. The ESRB does not violate the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment prevents government from censoring speech and press.
You know what happens to all those "requests" from watchdog groups? They go into the trash. That is what. The ESRB does not let themselves be enfluenced by outsie agencies. To do so would open up a world of hurt that they do not want. Can you imagine what the rating system would be like if they could be lobbied? You will have incentive payments from the developers/publishers to get a certian rating. You will have incentive payments or ulimatums from watchdog groups to rate more strictly. That is what they avoid. They may read these requests, but it does not effect them.
If so that is their belief. But on the other hand, they hae more than one person rate the games. The require that the group be unanimous in the rating. The people in the groups are kept seperate to prevent any kind of intimidation factors in the rating decision. So if one person has beliefs similar to Thompson, then they will rate that way, but unless the whole group feels the same way, it most likely will not get that rating.
That is the point of the rating. To rate it based on what is suitable for children. So, they are doing their job correctly. But they are not violating the 1st Ammendment.
Lawsuits will happen and have happened. To be influenced by the threat of lawsuit is the same as being bought. They will not do this as it will open up a world of hurt that they do not want or need.
If you are unsatisfied with the current state of the AO rating, then take it to the people who can change it. Go to the console manufacturers and tell them you want AO games licensed. Go to the retailers that you want AO games to be sold in their stores.
To go to the ESRB and tell them you want AO games rated M so that they can be sold, you are no better than the likes of Jack Thompson and NIMF who want M games rated AO so they can't be sold.
Your reasons given ring of conspiracy theory, there's not a shred of proof and thus they lend no credence to your argument. The ESRB isn't perfect but it was created to shield us from possible 1st Amendment attack by the government. Caving in to any group, whether it be the gamers, the developers or the anti-gamers, is ultimately counterproductive and would undermine the credibility that is the foundation of the ESRB.
"No matter what happens, the game companies have the right to get a rating that allows the game to be on the game systems."
Why do you keep saying this? Where would that right come from?
I must also add that the AO rating is not just for porn. I quote the ESRB:
Read that twice if you need to. It says that AO is for games that have intense violence and/or pornography. Read it again if you don't believe me.
Thanks for the help in debating spartan. I was a little late in the debate this time around.
He just doesn't get it.
Church is a place to "enjoy" religion, dogma gets stale after awhile looking at the "relevant" world now and then is not such a bad thing...
spartanmichael
If anyone is violating the first amendment its the console makers but via a loophole in copyright they have the final say over what games go on their system, if they did not use a blanket ban they would use indavenaul ones to keep "adult" games off their system.
in the end the ESRB just rates games using random swaffas of people from their city, hobbling together a panel for each game its like the MPAAs system only they use "real" people :P
Daniel
Outside of 5 years maybe, but with the retail and the console makers being so anal over it not before them.
I also see nothing wrong with hosting Halo 3 events as a means of getting kids in the door. They're not iconifying the MC or anything stupid like that.
Heh, you don't need anyone's help 99% of the time, but you're welcome. I remember when we used to have similar conversations with 'ol Terrible Tom. Deja vu!