Amazon.com Widgets

Do you believe the ESRB rating requirements to be too strict (yes) or too lenient (no)?

  • ESRB ratings are too strict

    In reality most kids in this generation are a lit more mature than they were back when esrb started to rate games since we have more access to the internet we can see more things so since we have seen more we know more. When esrb rates some games they overlook things such as who the intended audience is and why the game was made. More and more kids are maturing faster and earlier than esrb can keep up. As the years have gone on movie ratings have changed why not do the same with video games

  • ESRB ratings are too strict

    In reality most kids in this generation are a lit more mature than they were back when esrb started to rate games since we have more access to the internet we can see more things so since we have seen more we know more. When esrb rates some games they overlook things such as who the intended audience is and why the game was made. More and more kids are maturing faster and earlier than esrb can keep up. As the years have gone on movie ratings have changed why not do the same with video games

  • Think about what the rating means.

    Many games are rated unnecessarily high. Games like super smash bros melee get T rated for near nothing, just because its a fighting game. Games get ratings just because many of wii U games get E10 when there target audience is obviously a bit lower. The ESRB rates games by the very worst part of it, if you had 20 numbers 1-100 would you rate the entire bunch by the highest number when the majority could be under 30?

  • Theme/difficulty restrictions on ratings.

    The ESRB's strictness comes not just in the AO vs. M incident, but also in EC/E/E10+ field. Earlier (when I was a kid), I was checking out what games are rated as EC (Early Childhood), and these were games like My Little Pony themed ones (watch out for bronies!), Dora the Explorer themed ones etc. Most games I played and still play are E/E10+/T (even if I don't see any reasons for T rating). However, I don't see any reason in dividing E, EC and E10+. Sometimes games that own these three ratings may be just same thing, but with different themes ("realism" vs "cartooniness", relations to shows/merchandises etc) or difficulties (which as a fact can still be adjusted). It's like saying that kids can play with Barbies but cannot play with monster highs (mind that there are barbie collectors as well, and I hate Mattel Inc overally). Or they can listen to 1D's One Way or Another but cannot listen to Blondie's version (it's a cover, after all!!!). Prior to labeling a game with age restrictions, mind peripheral demographics, just like these examples with dolls and a song.
    Age restrictions are not necessarily made to just protect kids. Sometimes their effect is just satisfying parents that kids are under their control. Under "protecting kids" agenda, we may do various things that do more suppression or restriction for kids broadmindedness, narrow interest circle, and overally hold them back than leading them forward. While I respect people who try to protect kids from inappropriate content, the whole point is what content should be considered as inappropriate or not. When we try to label everything as inappropriate, we could suddenly come up with question: "But what is appropriate for kids then, if ... Is inappropriate?".

  • Yes, the ESRB ratings are unneccassrily strict.

    The ESRB rating requirements are an effort to control the level of violence and profanity available to young children. The reality is that these ratings do the exact opposite. By labeling a game or software as unsuitable for children under the age of 18, they make it extremely desirable to the exact crowd they are trying to keep it from. Teenagers will always be able to get their hands on any game one way or another. If the ESRB would not be so diligent in labeling games, teenagers might be less interested in them.

  • No the ESRB ratings are not too strict.

    ESRB rating requirements are not too strict. I believe that the ratings requirements are just fine for the purpose that they serve. Censorship is never a good thing but there is a need to protect children from some of the graphic violence, sex, and language that occurs in everyday life and in games.

  • Ratings Mean Nothing

    I do not believe the Entertainment Software Rating Board is either too strict or too lenient mainly because the vast majority of people pay no attention to these ratings at all, they my as well not even be there. People will always argue one way or the other on their ratings, such as the movie industry does to their board. To me, these systems are useless and serve no real function. They are merely in place because people can't handle themselves properly or want to depend on other people to censor things for them.

  • They're just about right, maybe a little lenient.

    I think that the ESRB ratings system is just about right. It really depends on the individual or the parent, which is why those ratings can only be a general guideline. The ratings system that's in place therefore has to tread a very moderate line so that it can be taken seriously.

  • They do not protect kids.

    No, I do not believe that the ESRB rating requirements are too strict, because they do not do enough to protect children. The ratings do not make it clear enough to parents that the games have adult themes, and that even older children should avoid them. A parent who is watching would make the decision on their own. A parent who is disengaged really needs a strong warning.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.