It's high time we took aim at the real threat to America's families... board games!!!!

To me, she isn't really that much of a hypocrite because this game is not being sold anywhere but through the son's website. There's no investigation here into how the game is being sold, what information is asked for by the son before selling the game, etc. If it was as clear cut as someone could prove the son is not trying to limit the sale of the game to kids, then I think people would have a better case. Other then that, I think too many people are crying wolf at the situation without thinking clearly about it due to the Mass Effect sensationalizations.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and speculate that Goon has some sort of contact with John Sebelius. No one took a shot at John from what I've read... Only shots at his mother for being an overwhelming hypocrite.

Goon = Troll

There... I'm done with my coding for today ;)

Seconded.

Three to one odds she won't come out and say that her son's game should subject to legislation that prevents minors from buying it.

So when it is her kid making the violent board game, she is proud.

But when it is a company making a violent video game, she is outraged.

Sounds about right.

I guess violent videogames are only bad if someone outside your family is making them.

I see the potential for "double standards" talk, but seriously this isn't even all that ironic. It's amusingly coincidental. He's 23 and has had an interesting upbringing with his parents being who they are. I salute him for breaking out of the political correctness I'm sure he's been burdened with all of his life.

He's no victim and I'm sure he's had an easy life, but I'd be bursting at the seems for offensive humor if I were to be surrounded by political parents.

I love me some board games, too, so I like him already.

Good on him - I hope he stirs up trouble. I can see it now: "BOARD GAMES ARE CRACK FOR KIDS".

You owe me money GP. It's to replace my hypocrisy detector machine that has just exploded.

Someone needs to call her out on her hypocrisy.

I...uh..gyak..bebebebebebebebebebe..WTF?

@jdr, that's right, because we all know democrats have exclusivity on being douchebags, right?

Mindless idiot.

@ Pixelanter

Hey, Republicans are not immune from this crap either. Just so happens this lady is a Democrat, and the Democrat's logo is an ass; hence, the small line about her being a democrat.

I was making a joke. And if that was enough for you to call me a mindless idiot... well... you need to get a hobby or something.

And you know Pixelaner...

Assuming you are a Democrat of some sort, you aren't very tolerant of my opinion and freedom of speech. Maybe you should change parties.

@ Pixelantes

Good on you, mate.

And i thought "hypocrite" was spelled H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E, but i guess it's spelled S-e-b-e-l-i-u-s

Hypocrite much?

@ Goon

I think you are missing the point. This woman cried foul at game developers for making violent video games. She called for legislation on them.

Now her son has made a violent board game. She is proud of her son's creativity.

Just because one is a board game does not make it any more "artistic" or "creative" than the other.

Wait wait wait... en-ter-tain-ment... what is this silly word you speak of?

Thank God for all these comments.
I thought I was imagining this article...

@Goon,

The son of this pro-censorship governor has not "joined our ranks" as you so insinuate. The offspring of an anti-video game politician is not automatically a friend of the industry just because he sells a violent themed board game on a website.

[gets some fresh popcorn and another beer]

@ ConstantNeophyte

Seconded.

ConstantNeophyte Says:

@ Goon

I call bullshit on you. What the fuck is your problem?

And I say:

And I call triple dog bullshit on you, Mr. Yes man for being a lemming and not listening to my point at all.

This site is supposed by about not letting government infiringe on people's free speech (i.e. game developers, publishers) and here we have some guy who has nothing to do with anything being dragged into the light because of his mom and because he created something. Yeah way to promote his first amendment rights to creativity.

Yeah his mom's a hyocrite. We get that. The point is what did he do to deserve this?


Partisan hackery.

Goon, I think the real hippocrisy comes from the fact that this person's parent can be proud of a game which is, and I quote...

".....intended for mature audiences — not children — and is simply intended for entertainment,”, whilst at the same time attempting to censor and control the very same thing in digital format. It's a game, it's got bigoted and stereotypical undertones, it's got crime of all descriptions in it, it could almost, almost be called a comic version of Manhunt by the storyline, whilst I don't comment on the game because I haven't played it, I can most certainly comment on the hypocrisy of his parents' response to him creating it.

GoodRobotUs Says:

Goon, I think the real hippocrisy comes from the fact that this person’s parent can be proud of a game which is,

--
Finally a voice in the wilderness :)

I agree with you on that, I guess i'm just not happy to see someone pulled out into the light for not doing anything at all.



So i'll shut up but I did get the point that the lady is a hypocrite and we all know the natural progression is usually from board game to game developer. Then this would be a REAL story IMO.

wait....a politician supporting a game writer
i dont care even if its her son
WTF,R

The real question is what she'll do if the board game is ever turned into a video game.


-P

'I have visited' = 'I haven't visited' in first paragraph.

@ Goon

"You don't throw a fellow designer under the bus."

You do if he's serving his own interests at the cost of the industry's (like, say, T2/R*). This is coming from a professional video game designer.

BUT...the only person who is saying that this article casts John Sebelius in a negative light is you. He made a game. Fantastic. It's a board game. That's a medium marketed to children more often than not, but okay, as long as he's being responsible with distribution and notifies potential customers that it's a mature game, he should be free to do whatever he wants with it.

Would I play it? Probably not, unless someone put it in front of me and asked me to, but I'm not going out of my way for it. Does it bother me that he made it? Not at all.

But his mother's stance, as has been established, is indeed quite hypocritical, and that DOES bother me. Particularly since board games are indisputably a medium that is marketed more towards children than video games.

Average age of a video gamer is about 29 today. I don't know what the average board gamer age is, but I'm pretty damn sure it's notably younger than that.

Oh really ? So all board games are marketed for kids now? (yeah isn't that what the other side says about videogames - even when they aren't? Hmmm.)

There are entire industires dedicated to marketing non-family board games to adults.


And you don't throw someone under the bus to make a point about first amendment free speech. And mr. developer, with all due respect, if it was you in this story you'd be crying foul.

Okay i've made my point and i've beat the horse dead. Thanks for the lively discussion - I disagree but I DO respect your opinions.

@ Goon

"Oh really ? So all board games are marketed for kids now? (yeah isn’t that what the other side says about videogames - even when they aren’t? Hmmm.)"

Being a bit loose with your interpretations there. Lumi was just pointing out that of the two mediums (videogames and board games) boardgames are much more likely to be played by children.

This is at odds with the Governors differentiation between videogames and her sons board games.

It was a valid point you chose to misinterpret rather than address.

One could almost consider that trolling.

The hypocrisy doesn't exist at the creation of the game, it exists in the political reaction to it. I fully support this mans' right to make and market the game, what I would like to do though, is point out the disparate attitude adopted by Politicians with regards to Video Games.

As for board games being marketed to children, it should be clarified that I'm talking about common political perception here, which should never be confused with reality. Yes, both Video and Board games have their adult variations, the hypocrisy exists in the political reaction to them. We aren't saying that their reaction to the board game is the problem, it has every right to exist, the problem is the unequal treatment that Video-Games receive.

@Goon -- nobody is picking on or otherwise calling out her son, or criticizing his work. The entire point is that the Governor seems willing to attack the first amendment rights of video game developers, but her own son who made a board game which could be classified as just as problematic by her own definition as to what constituted a violent video game, with themes that are equivalent to some of the "worst" video games on the market, she supports her son's freedom of expression while attacking others'.

The double standard she seems to have on this is what is brought to light. There is nothing at all condemning or attacking her son's game or her son either. It is merely pointing out that *she* is wishy-washy on the issue, mainly because its her son, and not some random, nameless game developer.

You know, I read your response and you made some good points but then you just had to insult me. Okay, fair enough:

CUNT.

Last Word

Goons Unite! You all got played. I don't care about any of this stupid shit.

The internet is serious business!

@ Goon

OH NOES!!1!!one!! you are a troll. If we had noticed that already...
Oh... wait...

They can't condemn it because it is a board game, and board games don't warp children. Bill Gates certainly was never influcenced by Monopoly or Sorry!, was he?

Rhode Island School of Design huh? Why isn't that surprising...

...nice.

Y'know, too be truly fair, i don't really see the same amount of Hypocrisy that most others see... i mean, yes she wants to legislate video games but she has not out right denounced them as many others have; atleast not from what i have read here. i don't see her calling them "Sick and Depraved", that the games should have never been made in the first place, that the creators should be ashamed of themselves, that the video games are not creative in any form or way, or that the games should be outright banned. Essentailly, unless she says something along those lines, it can be assumed that she is saying "violent games have a right to exists, they just shouldn't be sold to children"; she may even go so far as to think that they may be creative... which is pretty much the same stance she has with her son's board game; it's creative, but it should not be sold to children (as the son points out that it is not meant for children)... really, to take what little she has said about video games a ASSUME she does not recognize them as an art form, is really just putting words in her mouth... NOW, if she HAS called video games filth, un-artistic and all that, THEN i would see the point your all making.

the hypocrisy i really see is legislating video games and not board games... but really, lets be honest, there is too heavy of a difference between those too mediums... Grant it, another hypocrisy, a much more serious one, is her desire to legislate video games but not Movies and music and so forth; now those mediums she has either put in the same place as video games or are close enough in relation to video games that if she should want to legislate one she should legislate the other... though when it comes to movies, i would ask "is she being a hypocrite, or is she one of many people under the misconception that movies are regulated by law?"

From what I've read, no one took a shot at John Sebelius. They're just taking a shot at his mother, Kathleen, for supporting his game, yet condemning other games and being a hypocrite.

@ monte'

Hmm... you may be right. She might not be saying that violent games don't have a right to exist, but that she wants them to stay out of the hands of children, just as she probably wouldn't want her son's game to be purchased by a child.

But one thing I'm curious about: antigame activists talk about keeping games out of the hands of children. Where I come from, a videogame retailer won't let anyone under age 17 to purchase a game without one of the person's parents there to say that it is okay, and they warn the parents that it's a Mature rated game. Do all retailers in all states abide by these guidelines? Because if they do, then their arguments that violent videogames are being sold to children is somewhat hypocritical, considering that parents are the ones allowing children access to these games.

@ Ebonheart

You have rekindled my faith in humanity. It should last until I have to drive home atleast ;)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh man, that's great.

You guys were responding to someone named goon?

Thats serious business guys. Serious FUCKING business.

This is the internet. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously needs to avoid any name that includes "Goon". In any online discussion, its a good idea to avoid discussing something with someone named goon.


It doesn't end well for anybody when you engage a goon.

I live in kansas, but didn't vote for her.

She's no different than any other governor or legislator or politically desirous judge. She wants to seem tough on something, especially something reliable voters hate. Sometimes it's a substance, sometimes it's music, sometimes it's dangerous minorities, sometimes it's games. I think pointing out the hypocrisy loud and clear should make her come down to earth over games in the future, when she forgets about her son's game.

Level of irony/hypocrisy/double standards in this item: 0%.

Saying that sales of violent games should be regulated to prevent them falling into children's hands is very, very, very different from saying violent games shouldn't exist.

Gordon Bennett, you people do test a man's patience.

I have bought and own 279 games, 250 of which I cant legaly have bought. Video games dont encourage violence, you have to be seriously disturbed to be turned by grand theft auto, some games like manhunt or the sequel are just sick and should be banned, but the vast majority are fine.

What's the big deal? This VERY biased news item fails to mention that the son's game might have been aimed at adults ONLY. It could be sold ONLY TO ADULTS.

The point idiot gamers fail to get is that regulation doesn't mean censorship. Why is it so hard to want games for adults to only be sold and marketed to adults.

M is meant for mature audiences, but that doesn't really mean "adults only." How many kids watch South Park on TV (It has an MA rating)? How many kids go to an R-rated movie? Those are meant for "mature" audiences.

The difference is these game makers say, "we really only mean for adults to play these games." But they fight the AO rating. Get with the freakin' program, the AO rating is equal to NC-17 or X.

How many kids do you see in an NC-17 movie? NONE. They aren't allowed. While a good parent might let their 13 year old watch an R rated film, few GOOD parents would let the same 13 year old watch an X rated film. There is a huge difference.

Also note... the game made by the Governor's son was a BOARD GAME too. There is a difference in the level of violence between a board game and a video game.

@ Game Industry Insider

The difference is these game makers say, “we really only mean for adults to play these games.” But they fight the AO rating. Get with the freakin’ program, the AO rating is equal to NC-17 or X.

No one is fighting the AO rating. I am sure that Rockstar would have left the AO rating on Manhunt 2 if Sony and Nintendo would allow those games on their consoles. They probably would have had no problem.

The problem is that cosole manufacturers try so hard to have some symblance of "family-friendly" that they completely disregard anything that is AO.

M is meant for mature audiences, but that doesn’t really mean “adults only.” How many kids watch South Park on TV (It has an MA rating)? How many kids go to an R-rated movie? Those are meant for “mature” audiences.

But how often do you hear politicians screaming for legislation on movies or tv? Never. Noone cares that little 10 year old Timmy can get into Saw IV or American Pie 30. But they seem to be outraged that little Timmy can play Halo or Mass Effect.

How many kids do you see in an NC-17 movie? NONE. They aren’t allowed. While a good parent might let their 13 year old watch an R rated film, few GOOD parents would let the same 13 year old watch an X rated film. There is a huge difference.

When was the last time you saw and NC-17 movie in the theatres? I thought as much. They are extremely rare and only shown in the seedy theatres if at all. They are never successes.

When was the last time you heard an outrage that a movie studio edited their NC-17 movie to get an R rating? Never. No one cares. But they do scream and holler when an AO game gets edited to get an M rating.

What’s the big deal? This VERY biased news item fails to mention that the son’s game might have been aimed at adults ONLY. It could be sold ONLY TO ADULTS.

So how is his mom supposed to feel when she finds out that little 10 year old Timmy was able to buy the game with no problems? There are no restrictions on any entertainment media, besides what is considered obscene under state law. Anything else is free reign for any content developer.

The makers of video games are trying to establish that video games are not just for kids. But with "industry insiders" such as your self, that effort is being slowed down.

GTA, Manhunt, Halo, Bioshock etc, these games are meant for the adult audiences. It is not the fault of the developer that the console ompanies won't liscense the games without the content being water down enough to get an M rating. i am sure that these companies would love to make the games AO if they could.

Finally:

The point idiot gamers fail to get is that regulation doesn’t mean censorship. Why is it so hard to want games for adults to only be sold and marketed to adults.

Your right. It doesn't. Not yet anyway. This is a very slippery slope. It can quickly become censorship if left unchecked. But the best way to fight it is to let the industry police itself. We are doing a fabulous job compared to the Movie industry.

Don't believe me? Check with the FTC.

In their sting operations, only 42% of kids aged 10-16 were able to buy an M rated game. But of that same age group, 71% of those kids were able to buy R rated and unrated(often the equivelent of NC-17) movies. Yet no one is throwing a fit about that.

Why is that?

I see nothing wrong with games as a whole, but I've heard STRAIGHT FROM THE DEVELOPER'S MOUTHS, "we think this game is for mature audiences." I asked, "would you accept an AO rating." The answer every time is "we think Mature is enough."

My whole problem with this issue isn't that I'm against games. The publisers, the developers, the retailers and the game console makers are fighting the AO rating. WHY? Because it will hurt sales. I know this, I've studied economics.

The Constitution for the record is not "God Given Rights." Men wrote the Constitution and the issue of free speech is not at question.

I'd also say the success or such of NC-17 movies is not at question. But I do see a problem when retail allows "Unrated" versions of movies to be sold. This essentially goes around the rating system. That is a problem, and another that needs to be addressed.

The point, at least as I see it, is that parents are responsible for what their children watch and see. No argument there. But the ratings should help them make that decision. How do the ratings work when Halo is violent with blood, but Manhunt 2 is in a league all its own. This is where the AO rating should be used.

But what did Rockstar do, they edited it. The ESRB should have stood the ground and said, "unless you start from scratch you're getting an AO." AO could work, AO should work.

I am really a game industry insider. I've been to every E3, I review games. But I also feel this industry is shooting itself in the foot time and time again. Rather than bend to address problems the industry will rally around stupid causes, in the false cry of censorship. And in doing so is going to bleed to death.

If the industry accepted an AO rating, then the politicos wouldn't be able to say, "this trash is being sold to kids." Instead the industry could say, "we truly believe game X is for adults. It was rated accordingly."

Mature? What does mature mean? See a frat house on a Friday night and there is nothing mature about those guys, but see a frat house on Friday in a movie and it is mature content. The context is what matters. The industry used the word "mature," because parents can say, "my kid is mature enough."

But AO, with big letters saying, "Adults Only," might tell even those who do a half-ass job of parenting, "maybe my 14 year old shouldn't play this."

Why is this simple concept so hard to understand!

@ Game Industry Insider

I am really a game industry insider. I’ve been to every E3, I review games.

How does that make you an industry insider? So you write reviews of games and you go to trade events. Is Roger Ebert a movie insider?

I am not trying to discredit you but I am trying to make you understand this fact: An insider is someone who works inside the industry. You cannot really be an insider unless you are developing games, producing games or work in any of the established bodies representing games (ESA, EMA, ESRB)

Just because you are a reviewer does not make you an insider. It is more of a parasite or symbiosis relationship.

But back to your point about the AO thing. Those developers say that they would rather have an M rating over an AO one. Why is that?

Because it will hurt sales.

You said it yourself. But why does it hurt sales? Because console companies won't liscense them. Retailer won't sell them. The Developers and publishers are more than willing to make them and market them if the other factors would be willing as well.

How do the ratings work when Halo is violent with blood, but Manhunt 2 is in a league all its own. This is where the AO rating should be used.

But what did Rockstar do, they edited it. The ESRB should have stood the ground and said, “unless you start from scratch you’re getting an AO.” AO could work, AO should work.

So it is okayfor movies to be able to just edit out a couple of offensive scenes in an NC-17 movie to get an R rating, but it is not okay for a video game to edit out a few offensive scenes to get an M rating? Wow, hypocritical to the max.

In case you missed my point up above, I am sure that Rockstar would have been more than willing to keep the AO rating, if the console companies and retailers would allow it.

Additionally, you are saying that game developers should be willing to waste 10s of millions of dollars by scarpping a completed game, simply because it gets and AO rating and that is not what they wanted.

But as for your Halo/Manhunt 2 comparison, from the ESRB:

Halo 3: Blood and Gore, Mild Language,
Violence

Manhunt 2: Blood and Gore,
Intense Violence,
Strong Language,
Strong Sexual Content,
Use of Drugs

If you are telling me that a parent can't tell the difference in these two games and make a proper judgement call, they really must be idiots.

One has "violence" as a descriptor. The other has "Intense violence". Which one do you think would be a little more adjustable for a teenager.

This is what parent responsibility is for. For parents to make informed decisions and act on them.

Is it really the industry's fault that little Timmy's parents ignored the rating and content descriptors when they bought him Manhunt 2? No it is solely the parents' fault.

The problem with your whole simple concept is that you are applying a completely different set of moral obligations to the game Industry for no real or acceptable reason, Manhunt 2 is sick, yes, I'm not going to go over the comparison of games and movies, suffice to say that, had Saw received a rating that hadn't suited the developer, they would be perfectly alright with simply editing the movie, as has been done countless times in the past, but Video Game manufacturers have to work from the ground up with their media, rather than using special effects or editing?

Why this special obligation? There is no concrete evidence whatsoever to suggest that moral obligation is required, there is no legal system whatsoever to enforce ratings on other Media, so what makes Video Games so very different from these other forms of Media that requires them to be segregated out from the group in that way? Can you mention a single causal event that requires this 'special treatment' of laws that enforce the ratings? If people want to lobby the ESRB to be stricter with their ratings then that is up to them, but to simply leap onto the 'make a law!' bandwagon sounds incredulous to say the very least.

I don't have a problem with any politician who wants to attempt a spectrum-wide enforcement of ratings from an independent rating body such as the ones that already exist, that's fine and dandy and they can bang their heads against the Amendments, regardless of who gave that right, at least dealing with the issue as though it were a single conglomerate object. Maybe there would be some research that involved more than differences, in fractions of a second, in the length of noise blasts, who knows? They might even succeed, anything is possible.

If you're up for raising awareness of the ESRB ratings, and what they actually mean, I support you, if you're up for making the AO rating available to the ESRB without making it a death-blow to video games, I support you, but if you think that a law which singles out video games for no discernible reason is somehow an acceptable alternative, then I don't agree with you.

Looks fun. Like a twisted "13 Dead-End Drive".

Don't worry - she'll condemn her son's game in the name of intellectual honesty.

@Game Industry Insider
"I don’t want to see AO games reduced to having to be sold along side porn, but in the Internet age, it is very possible for AO rated games to be sold. Would it make it harder to buy. Absolutely, but that’s not really all that bad either. If the games are harder to buy, fine. But all it will take is one true AO hit for major companies like Walmart to decide, “maybe we should carry this.”

The problem is making hit AO games that do THAT well... Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have already drawn the line and said "NO" to AO... so that leaves the game to ONLY be released on PC, and ofcourse the company that makes the game suffers from the challenge of not being able to get the game on the shelves and would have to rely on online sales alone... this can be disasterous for sales... and we must keep in mind that it costs MILLIONS to make a hit game.

IDEALLY, if the plan were to work out perfectly, the AO game would be so successful that the online sales alone would be enough for the devlopers to break even with the cost to make the game, the game would be so successful that retailers would want to get in on it and would be more willing to carry the game, and finally, the success of the game would be enough that when the publishers offer to port the game over to the game consoles, the console makers will say "hell yes!"... and thus the AO rating has a chance

HOWEVER, if the plan does not work, then none of the above will happen and the developer would have lost MILLIONS in making the game... So really, the risks are incredibly high for developers, hence why few would even THINK of making such an attempt... really, it would be very hard to convince a developer and publisher to take on such a risk and NOT cave in to reducing the content to get an M rating... and the chances of the plan even coming close to having such success is very slim; afterall, the console makers and retailers can get by just fine without one hit game, so the pressure on them will be low, not to mention both groups fear the backlash that will likely occur from watchdog groups and pundits should they say "we allow AO rated games"

Really, i think the ONLY way suhc a plan would have any hope of success is fi the game in question comes from a pre-existing, famous hit franchise (thus making certain it will sell)... more than likely, we would be quick to say GTA fits the bill; unlike Manhunt 2, a GTA game might be worth fighting for... but even then the risks are high and the chances of success are low... with the threat of poor sales, it will be easy for developers and publishers to cave in to working for a lower rating... and i must include, the plan only works if their is ONLY the AO game and not if there is an AO and a M rated version, as the console makers and retailers will be quick to only support the M rated version...

Though personally, i always found GTA to be rather tasteless... i would prefer the AO game worth fighting for was the very definition of artistic brilliance... as in, instead of being violent and sexual for the sake of controversy, but being violent and sexual because it's more brilliant that way... y'know, high level violence, and sexual content that would be considered tasteful; like the Sex scenes in Mass Effect, though a bit more nudity as to help warrent the AO rating... it would be artistic in the sense that to edit out the content would only serve to SERIOUSLY take away something from the game; it's not there because the developer wants it to be there, but because it NEEDS to be there... though that's very idealistic and it would be hard to come up with such a game

Though ya, overall, your plan is idealistic, but is highly unlikely to work in reality... finding someone willing to take the risk is hard enough, never mind the chances of eveything working out.

Really, it would just be a whole lot easier if someone would just go to Sony, microsoft, nintendo, and the retailers and slap them upside the head and tell them to grow up and allow AO... Also getting those watchdog groups and pundits to shut up would also seriously help those four get with it... one thing that poeple should point out is that Sony and Microsoft are huge hypocrites in that their consoles can be used to play porn DVD's and as such are already allowing AO rated content on their consoles (though companies love ingoring their own double standards)

I don't know why she's proud of her sons "creativity" she should be upset that he blatently ripped all the plot points in his game from the tv show "Oz"

[...] January 31, 2008 at 2:41 am · Filed under Cops and crime, Culture, Politics I’m running the straight, boring AP version of this brief about a prison-themed board game in Friday’s paper, but for you, the hip, with-it, online friend of SmartNews, I’m providing this link to a blog that puts the brief in amusing context. For the clickphobic, here’s the good half from Gamepolitics.com: In 2006, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) threw her support behind a proposal to legislate video game sales. What she said then was: [...]

[...] Link [...]

@ Game Industry Insider

I am a reporter and have written about the industry for years. So I know that consoles won’t play AO games and retailers won’t carry them. So why have the rating at all?

That still doesn't make you and "insider"

But back to the AO rating. It is a valid rating. It is just one that console companies and retailers have drawn the line at.

And maybe the other issue would be to make a rating between TEEN and MATURE. If Mature is really meant for adults, than let’s come up with a LATE TEEN rating. My point continues to be that Dungeon Siege (a game no worse than the LOTR movies) is Mature, but so is Manhunt 2. Doesn’t that seem a bit odd?

This is something that is continually discussed here on Game Politics. We would like to have a 15+ or 16+ rating. But that is the ESRB's decision to make, not ours.

PG-13 was created to serve a middle ground. Maybe that’s the solution. And truly make MATURE mean “not for children.” Maybe change Mature to mean Adult. You know the ESRB didn’t want to call it Adult because that sounded like “adult entertainment” as in porn. So they slipped by with Mature, which is misleading as I’ve said.

PG-13 was made to be the middle ground between PG and R. The current T rating of video games is the equivilent of the PG-13 rating. Currently there is no middle ground between a PG-13(13+) movie and an R(17+) movie. But that is no excuse for the video game industry to not too make one.

But on making the M rating trully "adult only", what is to stop retailers and console companies from drawing the line at the new M rating? What makes you think that they will simply say "Oh, it's not AO anymore, okay we will let you make it."?

As for adopting a simple numbering system, it is unnecessary. Sure it may work, but the age groups are already printed on the rating label. The letters help make it more relatable for people. It is also easier to refference as well.

I think the key is the final line I just included. Games in the US may say “17+,” but that’s an afterthought. You want to bet the game publishers would cry from the roof tops if the ESRB said, “add the line that says, ‘not be be supplied…’” That would hurt sales too.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It is what we preach anyway. But there is a big difference. The UK system is backed by law and so that phrase has bite. In the US that would only be backed by retail and ESRB policy and the bite will be weakened. But that does not mean it shouldn't be done.

My uncle in Kansas says she's a crappy Governor.

Perhaps, America just needs to put in another rating. Australia has G (For Everyone), PG, M (Mature Audiences) & MA15+ (Can only be purchased by those older than 15). Is it flawed? Hell yeah as it denies the fact that their are games released with Adults in mind but since we don't have an R rating (18+) we can't get certain games released over here.

On a less off-topic note, this story is a grand example of double standards in action.