Mature Games...Yeah...Right
Hi all,
Ive been wanting to post something like this for a while now and i figure that telltales General chat is the perfect place for such an esoteric and confusing debate.
The Issue:
The "Mature" rating and how it is applied (or mis-applied if you agree with my viewpoint) to gaming today. "Mature" Is often used to describe the latest action/gore-fest or sex filled titles. I personally think that the catagory itself is inappropriate and fails to describe the target audience. While the next logical step is to use an "adult" rating, this too fails as it cuts out the majority of those games target audience (17-21 year olds). It seems that due to lack of options "Mature" has been retained as the descriptor whereas a label of merely 17+ would seem to more effectively describe the games audience.
Using a general developer quote about modern FPS for an example: "Todays gamers demand a more realistic and engrossing gaming experience. Not only do they want to see an enemy have the appropriate reaction to being shot with a shotgun but they want to see (realisticly) how that shot deforms their target"
(This is not a real quote, but its something that has been said in many different FPS developer interviews in many different terms).
This is all fine and good, and is a great example of how FPS games and their audience have evolved; but too often the end result basically translates into "hey billy, check it out, i just blew off that zombies n@ds".
Most often the results are hardly mature, in fact sometimes its downright childish.
personally i believe that the whole rating system has to be restructured, perhaps using a model that includes the genre name and intended age group. Eg: Resident Evil would be Horror\17+ which implies that there are scenes of gore and violence (could be listed underneath similar to how they do now)
Unfortunately though, that concept has just as many holes in it as the original so it is perhaps not the best choice for the replacement.
I dont know thats just my opinion, what do you guys think?
{P.S.:this post was originally much longer and far more insightful, unfortunately it was lost when i had an error when attempting to preview it. Ive tried to re-write it as well as i can, but much of the original is lost. Originally i had branched off into how many cartoonish games are mis-labeled as "kiddie" games and how it negetively affects the level of creativity within the game industry, but now i have no idea what i said about that :P. Hopefully it will come back to me}
Ive been wanting to post something like this for a while now and i figure that telltales General chat is the perfect place for such an esoteric and confusing debate.
The Issue:
The "Mature" rating and how it is applied (or mis-applied if you agree with my viewpoint) to gaming today. "Mature" Is often used to describe the latest action/gore-fest or sex filled titles. I personally think that the catagory itself is inappropriate and fails to describe the target audience. While the next logical step is to use an "adult" rating, this too fails as it cuts out the majority of those games target audience (17-21 year olds). It seems that due to lack of options "Mature" has been retained as the descriptor whereas a label of merely 17+ would seem to more effectively describe the games audience.
Using a general developer quote about modern FPS for an example: "Todays gamers demand a more realistic and engrossing gaming experience. Not only do they want to see an enemy have the appropriate reaction to being shot with a shotgun but they want to see (realisticly) how that shot deforms their target"
(This is not a real quote, but its something that has been said in many different FPS developer interviews in many different terms).
This is all fine and good, and is a great example of how FPS games and their audience have evolved; but too often the end result basically translates into "hey billy, check it out, i just blew off that zombies n@ds".
Most often the results are hardly mature, in fact sometimes its downright childish.
personally i believe that the whole rating system has to be restructured, perhaps using a model that includes the genre name and intended age group. Eg: Resident Evil would be Horror\17+ which implies that there are scenes of gore and violence (could be listed underneath similar to how they do now)
Unfortunately though, that concept has just as many holes in it as the original so it is perhaps not the best choice for the replacement.
I dont know thats just my opinion, what do you guys think?
{P.S.:this post was originally much longer and far more insightful, unfortunately it was lost when i had an error when attempting to preview it. Ive tried to re-write it as well as i can, but much of the original is lost. Originally i had branched off into how many cartoonish games are mis-labeled as "kiddie" games and how it negetively affects the level of creativity within the game industry, but now i have no idea what i said about that :P. Hopefully it will come back to me}
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
That usually isn't a problem, but some people aren't truly mature until they're 21+ (If they ever are.). I don't think there's anything that the ESRB can do about that. I do think that the rating system could be further clarified, and that it should be.
Other then that, the best thing that can be done is to educate the public better on the rating system. Very few parents actually use it, and if they don't then it's entirely their fault for not doing so.
Since I'm at it already, let me state that I am sick and tired of the use of breasts in game and computer hardware advertising. I just got a video card today and on the box is a computer rendered naked robot woman complete with artificial nipples. I think that public nudity and public nudity in advertising are rather seperate issues, and I would prefer that my next video card packaging did not have a computer rendered naked robot woman on it.
AdamG's point about mature games requiring more than just violence and gore was something which was addressed more properly.
Dang, the one time i didnt back up the large post before trying to submit it and now the meat of the concept has floated on out of my head
As for it not describing the target audience, that just shows that these things are targeted at people that perhaps shouldn't be watching them. Not only is this not a problem of the rating system, but revealing things like this is in fact one of the points of having a rating system in the first place.
I'm not trying to be agressive here, but just what is it that you are complaining about? That you get things that are too distasteful to you if you use the ratings to guide your choices? That's not what these ratings are for. Ratings are a strictly negative tool to help prevent certain people from watching things they shouldn't.
Let's say there's a 12 year old who is very mature for his/her age, and the parents are aware that he/she understands that violence in games are not the same as violence in real life, and that real life violence is wrong. Now let's say that this 12 year old, despite being remarkably mature, can't handle graphic depictions of torture. The very idea gives him/her nightmares. So, this kid sees Quake 4, and wants to buy it.
"Okay", the parents say. "Let's take a gander at the rating."
The box is labeled "Mature (17+) for Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language."
"Well, if he/she were any other 12 year old, no way. But our kid is exceptionally mature about violence and language, so why not?"
So, the game is purchased, and they go home. The kid installs and plays it. No problem. But around the middle of the game, (and this scene is mentioned in just about every online review, so I won't bother to spoiler tag it), the main character has his limbs chopped off and replaced with mechanical ones, and his entire body mutilated... all from a first person perspective. Pretty intense, and definitely falls under "torture".
Well, as mentioned earlier, the kid can't handle torture scenes, and it affects him/her pretty badly. Nightmares, loss of appetite, the whole nine yards.
I know the ESRB can't cater to every individual. But if they put more descriptors on the boxes, there will be that much fewer headlines with Jack Thompson's name in them.
For the sake of the topic, lets just drop the actual ratings themselves and focus on what games are considered to be "mature" by gamers. I agree, the ESRB does the best it can with their rating system and it does work pretty darn well (for the most part). My point is more that the term mature in general does not actually suit the content. Wheras on the flipside a lot of the cartoonish games that are given the "kiddie" kiss of doom often have much more story and depth.
And to answer Harold B's question: I personally dont use ratings when puchasing games, i do my homework and research the title and learn what its about. My point is: wanting too see the Zombies n@ds blown off is in no way mature.
I suppose a good way to rate games would be to have specific age ratings and more thorough content descriptions, like you mention ShaggE.
As for GTA (Especially the 3rd one.), I haven't played it before (Because I thought it was stupid and I was quite frankly disgusted by it.), but I've seen someone play it. I thought it was the most graphic thing I've ever seen, and I don't think it should be on the market to everyone.
Things like that should need a special liscense (A free one.). It's just too much. And apprently it wasn't even rated M to begin with? That's just disgusting. And the Hot Coffee afair, it wasn't in the game but they thought about putting it in before it was cut. I don't like that Jack Thompson guy at all, he's an asshole, but he was right that GTA3 was sick.
I remember when the first GTA came out, I thought it was pretty cool. I also thought a lot of people would be angry about it, rightfully so. But it wasn't very detailed (The technology didn't exist for PCs yet), and it was almost comidic, so I wasn't bothered by it too much.
Don't get me wrong, I know the concept in GTA is sick, but in the first game at least it wasn't as realistic as it was in GTA3. I hear GTA4 will be out soon, and with the recent rapid developments in game graphics, it's going to likely be sicker then ever.
Anyway, yes, I definately think the ESRB ratings need an overhaul. I think there should be a basic description/rating, an age bracket would be good for that. And there should be content descriptions of things that people could find offensive.
I don't think they should list every little thing, like say it has spiders or something so watch out Arachnophobics, but it should say if it has content relating to things like rape, nudity, violence, blood, gore, torture, guns, bladed weapons, profanity, ect.
A rating of simply "M" with a warning of strong violence is simply not enough to tell you what to fully expect. Some people are really bothered by things that others aren't. There are some people who are even bothered by seeing people vomit, for example. I knew someone who was horrified by the sight of vomit.
P.S. Another game that comes to mind is Postal. An M rating is way inaddequate for that. You could shoot people, urinate on them, do all kinds of things. And that was in the demo, which is available to evvvvveryone. I thought Postal was disgusting at times, and I was upset by a lot of things in it, but I could appreciate the fact it was a game.
I would never go on a homicidal rampage and urinate on people, but it's still funny, and there's nothing wrong with a graphical depiction of humor as long as it's appropriately rated and controlled. It's kind of like medications. There are regular medications, over-the-counter medications, and prescription medications. Hell, there's even illegal ones! There should be more then one type of game then regular.
Scenes that push the boundaries of what's been done before in game violence should most definitely be taken in to consideration when rating a title.