Leave a comment

Comments 663

Well, if you're going to fight back... bm03 April 4 2006, 11:01:00 UTC
...then you might as well do it comprehensively.

/b

Reply


Cover your ears dahlin... skemodan April 4 2006, 11:04:58 UTC
This may get ugly.

I have to leave for work, I'll read the rest of this article there and give a good post.

Reply


Hmmm... this could get lively :) goodrobotus April 4 2006, 11:07:20 UTC
Good to hear the other side of the story. And good to see people dealing with these concerns swiftly and decisively.

Reply


Oh heck, I'll comment too blitzfitness April 4 2006, 11:15:59 UTC
Although the person who yesterday said he/she did work on this study in question responded very well for our criticisms, I think Mrs. Vance got the last laugh here. I do have a problem with one thing she says though. She says , in not quite the same words, that she doesn't want 'gamers' reviewing content in game. That confuses me. Do they not realize that we gamers are aware of what is in our games? I know right away what games I have that have violence as well as whether it's cartoon violence, simulated violence, etc. That is on par with someone telling me I have no right reveiwing the safety of a workout program because I'm a personal trainer and work out on a regular basis anyway! Many gamers are parents, most games are bought by parents, and we don't drool profusely and turn off our minds when engaging this activity, so asking at least a few of the ESRB's reviewers to be seasoned gamers of any level is not counter productive nor too much to ask ( ... )

Reply

Re: Oh heck, I'll comment too anticron April 4 2006, 11:47:11 UTC
Wouldn't it make sense to take polls from the 'majority' rather than the 'minority' to figure out the more harsh descriptor?

That way, the ratings are stern enough for the least biased source.

Reply

Re: Oh heck, I'll comment too silver_derstin April 4 2006, 12:15:38 UTC
The ESRB should be primarily composed of gamers and people that are the target audience, not 50+ "raters" that base their ratings on religion and years of TV rating.

My opinion.

Reply

Re: Oh heck, I'll comment too hilaryduffgta April 4 2006, 12:18:37 UTC
Dont forgert the "raters" who call then "nintendo Toys" or "Those video things"

Reply


Hee hee mr_putter April 4 2006, 12:07:25 UTC
There is definately a decrease in the sales of M-rated games to kids. Jack will say it's a lie, but then he'll have to visit the FTC website, and see what they think.
Still, I think the rating should be more lenient. While I agree with keeping GTA and SOCOM out of the hands of young kids ( 11 or younger ), I'm 15, and I can discern for myself what is right and wrong in the media. Just because I see Cortez blowing away the bad guys in TSFP doesn't mean I'm gonna grab a rifle and shoot the heads off everyone I see. Nor will I train monkeys to wield dual SMG's and tell them to shoot innocents, or grab the guns and do it myself.

Reply

No, you are totally wrong... jack316 April 4 2006, 13:20:34 UTC
40% of kids presenting at a major retailer can buy an M-rated game, no questions asked. Plus, the rate on-line is 100%. The Federal Trade Commission confirms this. Get your facts straight. Jack Thompson

Reply

Re: No, you are totally wrong... sundaos April 4 2006, 13:32:55 UTC
well ya, of course it is easier to buy online. It is damn near impossible to to enforce an age check, because all you have to do is lie about your age. How do you think so many children are still able to get into porn sites. There is very few effective tools to enforce age rated material.

Reply

Re: No, you are totally wrong... the1jeffy April 4 2006, 13:47:39 UTC
Except, gasp!, Parenting!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up