It's the role of the parents to monitor and control what content their children see. Every parent has the right to make that decision for their family. I see no reason for any other organization to be involved in that process. Before you let your kids play a game Google it to check for things you disapprove of.
There are Early Childhood, Everyone, Everyone, 10 and up, Teens, Mature 17+ , and Adult Only 18+. Most parents just buy the M rated games and give them to their kid. And is the AO rating really necessary? It's just one age over 17. Also some games are rated RP so they don't know what to rate it
At a young age many children have seen violence and gore, wether it be in the news, a show, our a Game they've probably seen it. Also it depends on the family and what they want to teach their kids about. If they want to expose their kids to games rated 17+ they should be able to.
It is because some games like A Hat In Time or AOE2 gotvrated 13+ just because theres a little fake blood.
While they don't deal with games that have improper content(mostly mobile games). This is definitely umfair supress. Secondly, I don't think every children will become crazy or triggered if they saw blood, Stating that the game 'may contain sightly disturbing content' is a better way for games that aren't really improper. Also, The esrb rate of a game is only determined by a few people istead of the community, Making the rate not open and can be easily rigged or manipulated. Just see the way that most players never care about these rates because esrb is fraud.
They have destroyed the original experience of many games in the USA. Opting to remove nudity and certain language from several adult oriented games with ratings tho match throughout the years. Yet seem to allow violent, Gory content to exist at a rating saying that it's safe for impressionable teenagers to view and participate in. You won't see a young adult pick up a game with nudity and attempt to harm groups of individuals because they saw something perfectly natural, But there have been cases of individuals influenced into performing violent acts due to the desensitization caused by violent games. Clearly these ratings are designed to appeal to a specific group of ignorant people who believe that our bodies and the way we speak are something to be ashamed of. We've outgrown the need for a company to determine what we can and cannot see as citizens of a "free" country. It does not fall on a company to have jurisdiction (which legally they don't) over the content released to the public. It falls on parents who need to take the time from their "busy" schedules to pay attention to their children and the content they're allowing their children to access and purchase. Nowadays you see plenty of children playing games like Grand Theft Auto And DOOM specifically intended for adult audiences with their parents approval. Thanks to that the rest of the population had to suffer. . Being treated like children and developers are forced to limit their content just to attempt to market a game, Because companies won't sell them due to parents not monitoring their children and the content they are allowing them to view. When I was being raised my parents constantly looked over what I was allowed to play and view. Removing games and movies that were too violent. Nowadays the parents just don't have the time to care and that falls on them. An adult doesn't need to be told what's ok and not ok to view and have a company decide for them based on complaints received from individuals who can't keep their child away from mature content that has up to this point been very clearly labeled for years, But that doesn't seem to stop them from allowing minors from accessing it and then complaining when they realize what they've been exposed to. The rating systems have merely become for show and do not perform the job they were originally intended for. They've become am excuse for people to stop monitoring the content children are exposed to. Just because a game is rated T does NOT mean it is safe for a teenager to play. It only means they've decided that's the way they felt they wanted to rate it. Plenty of games should have much higher ratings than they do or even lower in some cases. It only hurts the developers and consumers in the long run and exposed how ignorant and sickening our standards have fallen over the years.
The esrb rating system although not respected is still a bit useful. It provides a guideline for what to expect. Other rating systems however provide more fairies and detailed ratings than esrb. Esrb also does not rate the games by playing them they are rated from video submissions that they then use to rate the game
I hesitate to abolish the practice entirely as it lends useful information for those illiterate in the genre, like parents who don't play much and buy for their children. It is, however, not the best nor most accurate way to rate a video-game. I certainly wouldn't want to see it in the hands of the government, as it is in Australia. That would lead, inevitably, to censorship, higher price tags, and discourage designers from entering the market.
It has an overview of what's in the game. It can be useful for parents, but if they are looking for detailed information they should use common sense media, a non profit organization. Common Sense Media has age ratings by their critics and accurate descriptions of content as well as ratings of a certain area of content like violence. Some parents don't care, but others do and need to know what is in certain video games to decide if it's apprioaite for their children. Different parents have different opinions.
Some games may be made differently but giving parents an idea on what they're purchasing or agreeing to let their child purchase is great. I don't think that a child acting out something is an issue unless they're physically harming somebody. It is just there as a last minute warning in case you don't think a game is suitable for your child.
In other words, we don't want 3 year old kids acting out 'Call Of Duty', 'cause who knows what'll happen next? Nothing good, I can guess. And what if a kid sees some random 18+ game, plays it (even though they're 6) and IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE BLOOD + GUTS + MORE BLOOD + MORE GUTS SO THEY GET SCARED OUT OF THEIR PUNY SOULS!
Trust me... We don't want 3 year olds playing games for 18+ year olds. I mean, how would you react if you saw a random group of toddlers acting like they're in call of duty? You'd be quite mortified. And it might even attract the cops attention... And it would be extremely weird seeing a 3 year old in juvie. So, lets just avoid this situation by doing what we've been doing for times past.
While some parents might not care what their kids are exposed to, there are also many who look at the ratings to make sure that their children are not exposed to anything that they think is extremely offensive. Parents of young kids don't want them exposed to cussing, sex, and violence in their own home any more than if they were to go to the movies to watch something there.
There are people who get offended and scared from certain content so I think there should be at least some warning. It's kind of like movies. People are warned for language, violence, sexual content, drugs, and smoking scenes so people should be warned about that for video games. There isn't a big difference between the two but there is still wiggle room for what should be don, warnings should still be the same.
They will allow little kids to the movies when it is rated R and they will get scared and have nightmares are see inappropriate things. It is so stupid if little kids go they might not be able to handle their feelings. It is stupid enough that they sometimes let little kids.
I do think believe that most parent will just give M rated games to their kids, but if the parents don't want their kids playing those games, they at least have a heads-up as to what they do and don't want their kids to play. So don't get rid of it, even if parents will just get their kids M rated games.