The Bully

[Knight26]

BLaine is right, as a consumer in a free market economy you vote with your money. IF you don't like a product, or a company then don't but from them. Personnally I think the game sounds stupid, just like the JTA games, so I did not buy them. The more I found out about them and Rockstar, the more I avoided them, and adviced friends and family to do so as well. So, if you don't like the game, just don't buy it, if you don't like the company don't buy their products. One of the reasons I don't get Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream is because they help to fund anti-gun groups that actively remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens. I don't eat McDonalds, or most fast food, because I don't care for the food, or the wastefulness of the whole organization. Welcome to America where you vote with your money, in more ways then one.

[JKeats]

See, that's the great thing about this country (supposedly), I can play games where I kill people and you can play games where a magical elephant chases evil monkeys in balloons while collecting enough silver buttplugs to free the magical princess.

-Blaine wins.

EDIT: Yes, I totally messed up the quote on this. Dang you Invision, dang you.

Edited August 5, 2005 by JKeats

[Druna Skass]

When it all comes down to it JsARCLIGHT is right. So what if a kid gets ahold of a game like GTA, as long as their parents taught them right and wrong, reality and fantasy. I've been playing games like Doom since 3rd grade, and I've yet to pull of any homicides. If the parents actualy raised their damn kids then it really wouldn't matter what a game's content is. The entertainment industry isn't responsible for anyone's kids.

[JB0]

PS: Playing Haro Puyo Puyo on the GBA-SP  HARO GENKI HARO GENKI 

317714[/snapback]

I wants it!

Sheesh, why does no one start threads about the GOOD games.

[Hurin]

It should go like: . . . If a violation occurs, the parents of the child will be questioned and assigned for a parentsprogram which helps and monitor to prevent this situation.

317427[/snapback]

Sounds great! So when do we annex Poland!?!

317436[/snapback]

Poland? Annexation?

What's that all about?

317747[/snapback]

I find the idea of parents being "questioned," "monitored," and "re-educated" in some type of "parentsprogram" simply because their child played/obtained an adult video game to be to some degree. . . hmmm. . . what's the word. . . oh yes. . . fascist.

And I don't throw that word around lightly as I think it's over-used quite a bit in the current political climate (especially in the US).

The reference to Poland: Germany's invasion of Poland touched off WWII. Ask your grandparents about it. It was sort of a big deal. Especially over in your kneck of the woods!

[Black Valkyrie]

PS: Playing Haro Puyo Puyo on the GBA-SP  HARO GENKI HARO GENKI 

317714[/snapback]

I wants it!

Sheesh, why does no one start threads about the GOOD games.

317766[/snapback]

Here you go :

http://www.ncsxshop.com/cgi-bin/shop/AGB-P-BH6J.html

Edited August 5, 2005 by Black Valkyrie

[mikeszekely]

Never cared for these kind of games.  Saw the news about it awhile ago, why do they intend to make these kind of games just one word STUPID.   

PS: Playing Haro Puyo Puyo on the GBA-SP  HARO GENKI HARO GENKI 

317714[/snapback]

Right. Obviously GTA is stupid or it wouldn't sell very well.

See, if I had to play Haro Genki whateveryoucallit, I'd probably shoot myself.

See, that's the great thing about this country (supposedly), I can play games where I kill people and you can play games where a magical elephant chases evil monkeys in balloons while collecting enough silver buttplugs to free the magical princess.

If you don't like the games Rockstar puts out - don't buy them, folks. The point is that you have a choice.

Nothing bothers me more than when people give up their right to choose things simply because it doesn't affect them. Yet.

You either have the right to buy whatever kind of game you want or you have it chosen for you. Personally, the idea of giving up that freedom to an 80 year old fat white guy serving his 20th term in Congress doesn't really sound like freedom to me.

Edited to ADD:

I mean, honestly - does anybody want to support a group that protests a game that isn't even out... and refers to themselves as the Peaceoholics? If you say, "well I don't like Rockstar games, so I don't care" then you might as well join up.

Peaceoholics Assemble!

317749[/snapback]

Can't say I agree with your taste, but you've definately hit the point of the matter.

I don't like GTA. Yet in the Hot Coffee topic, I'd been one if it's most ardent defenders. And no, Bully doesn't appeal to me either. I agree with most of the comments that go along the lines of, "that game looks stupid."

This isn't about whether or not the game will be any fun, though. This isn't even about whether the game is in good taste or not. This is about the developers' rights to make games the way they want, be they violent, glorify criminal behavior, are done in bad taste, etc. And it's about the consumer having the power to judge for themselves whether such games are worth or even should be purchased.

Again, Bully doesn't interest me. But Ghadrack and Sundown have both expressed mild interest in the game. I might choose not to buy it, but I don't oppose Ghardrack and Sundown's right to buy it if they should feel inclinded to do so. I don't agree, then, with the Peaceholics' ideas that censorship in the media is okay, or that videogame retailers, developers, or publishers should serve as a scapegoat whenever minors commit violent crimes. (I'm a big fan of personal responsibility... as in parents should be responsible to teach their children basic morals that include not going out and commiting violent crimes, and that when a violent crime is commited, the perpatrator is the one responsible, not the videogames/TV/movies/comic books/Twinkies he or she consumes.) And, I'm wholeheartedly opposed to the idea that the government should step in to enforce any kind of censorship on any kind of media.

Should ratings like the ESRB's be used? Sure. Should retailers be held accountable if they don't enforce the ESRB's ratings and sell M-rated games to minors? Sure. Should the retailers or publishers be held accountable when the kid's parents buy the game for them anyway? No. Should the government just ban sex and violence in videogames because many parents today can't be bothered to monitor what there kids are playing? Definately not.

I wants it!

Seconded.

Edited August 5, 2005 by mikeszekely

[Sundown]

KIDS WILL FIND A WAY TO PLAY GAMES THAT WERE NOT INTENDED FOR THEM.  THAT'S JUST A FACT!!!!!!

I was at Gamestop around the time that GTA: SA came out and saw this 7-9 year old kid walk in with his parents, so that he could buy GTA:SA.

Did the parents even bother to look at the rating?  NO.  It was just complete ignorance on the parents who were probably so clueless of the games content and rating that they probalby still think of gaming as Pac-Man and Mario Bros.

This is just one scenario but kids WILL find ways to play games, so please stop blaming the parents.

317676[/snapback]

I think in that scenario you described, the parents are precisely the ones responsible. The kid found a way to get GTA:SA only because his parents weren't concerned enough to even glance at the rating or find out what the game was about.

Saying people shouldn't be held responsible for their kids because they don't know and they don't care just seems... well... silly.

Signed,

Captain Obvious

Edited August 5, 2005 by Sundown

[Kin]

It should go like: . . . If a violation occurs, the parents of the child will be questioned and assigned for a parentsprogram which helps and monitor to prevent this situation.

317427[/snapback]

Sounds great! So when do we annex Poland!?!

317436[/snapback]

Poland? Annexation?

What's that all about?

317747[/snapback]

I find the idea of parents being "questioned," "monitored," and "re-educated" in some type of "parentsprogram" simply because their child played/obtained an adult video game to be to some degree. . . hmmm. . . what's the word. . . oh yes. . . fascist.

And I don't throw that word around lightly as I think it's over-used quite a bit in the current political climate (especially in the US).

The reference to Poland: Germany's invasion of Poland touched off WWII. Ask your grandparents about it. It was sort of a big deal. Especially over in your kneck of the woods!

317779[/snapback]

Lol I'm not from Poland...

[MGREXX]

You are all missing a very important point.

Did the parents even bother to look at the rating?  NO.  It was just complete ignorance on the parents who were probably so clueless of the games content and rating that they probalby still think of gaming as Pac-Man and Mario Bros.

317676[/snapback]

Come on dude, that is just plain retarded. Should Playboy magazine be editted by the government because "Kids will find a way", should rated R movies be banned from theatres because "Kids will find a way", Should all forms of motorized travel be banned because "kids will find a way". Parental ignorance and personal responsibility are key here man, we live in America and while it seems to be "In fashion" right now to flaunt fake moral values and hipocritical religious retoric, the god damn fact of the matter is that we are all responsible for our own actions, as parents people have an obligation to their damn kids to do a good job raising them. Letting the TV and the Playstation be their source of inspiration and moral guidance is flaming foolish.

Than to have the gall to blame the ills of society on entertainment, it just stinks of a total lack of any sense of responsibility. It is a combination of weakness and reprehensible self righteousness driving us in high gear towards facism.

317715[/snapback]

Playboy, R rated movies and motorized transportation are harder to get a hold of than games, although not impossible. Sure some clerks will sell mags to minors, sure kids can "borrow" dad's car and sure kids can sneak into theatres if they really want to but there are safeguards to make it "easy" to do. DMV says no, most clerks will say no and movie theatres will ask for i.d's. When buying a game, those $tupid employees ANYWHERE will not gove a flying f(*#. You go there and they sell you the game. No questions asked.

AND THAT'S THE TRUTH.

Sure parents should be responsible for their kids but compaines like Rockstar sure make it harder to keep "unsuitable" subject matter away from kids. It's all about the almighty dollar bill and f($# everything else.

[JB0]

PS: Playing Haro Puyo Puyo on the GBA-SP  HARO GENKI HARO GENKI 

317714[/snapback]

I wants it!

Sheesh, why does no one start threads about the GOOD games.

317766[/snapback]

Here you go :

http://www.ncsxshop.com/cgi-bin/shop/AGB-P-BH6J.html

317784[/snapback]

I already knew where to get it. Thanks, though.

[Hurin]

Lol I'm not from Poland... 

317822[/snapback]

I'm aware. But less than a year later, the Netherlands surrendered. By "your neck of the woods" I meant Western Europe.

[JsARCLIGHT]

You know, I think MGREXX is right.

Last time I was at a game store there was a masked guy from Rockstar behind the counter with a gun to the head of the salesman forcing him to sell their games to children. I also saw a Rockstar worker covering the eyes of the child's parents so they could not see what their child was playing. And now that he mentions it I've been seeing ads for GTA in Highlights for Children and TV spots during Pokemon...

Since when is the maker's responsability that their product ends up in the right hands? Is it a moviemaker's duty to make sure that no one nowhere shows his R rated movie to anyone under the age of 13? Is it the sworn duty of Hugh Hefner to ensure that no child anywhere at any time sees his magazine? This is the same bullsh!t logic that people keep trying to pin on other industries for years. Since when is it the maker's responsability as to who gets their products? That falls entirely on the salesmen who sell the maker's wares. Is it Colt's fault that someone buys a handgun for a younger kid or a criminal? Is it Anheiser Busch's fault when somebody buys beer for teens? No. It's the fault of the jackass who is breaking the law for the child or other party. When a store clerk sells an M game to a child he is in the wrong, NOT the game maker. When a parent blindly buys an M game for their kids it is THEY who commit the error, not the maker. The makers of violent games are not standing on every street corner forcing people to buy their games. Just because things are out there does not mean the people who created them have a gun to your temple to buy them.

And I'm also not sure where all these people are getting this "Game stores sell M titles to kids all the time" crap. I was in a Gamestop just this week and a guy behind the counter REFUSED to sell a T rated game to a 11 year old. A T rated game. People DO "get it" that the ratings mean something and retailers do understand that they should be enforced. Ever shop at a walmart lately? They have taken the responsability of all this out of the hands of the employees as now the computer asks to see ID. The industry knows this is a problem and they are trying... so once again where does the arrow of blame strike?

Parents.

[mikeszekely]

When buying a game, those $tupid employees ANYWHERE will not gove a flying f(*#. You go there and they sell you the game. No questions asked.

AND THAT'S THE TRUTH.

No, it's not the truth. I know for a fact that I check ID. And I also know that my employees do, too. In fact, we get a certain perverse satisfaction in turning the little brats away (and saving ourselves a transaction to boot... Gamestop might care about how much money we make, I only care how our percentages turn out).

What's more, the guys in my store play these games. If a mom comes in wanting to buy Halo for her teenager, we're not going to make a fuss about it. But we spend a lot of time trying to talk parents out of buying games like God of War, BMX XXX, GTA, Manhunt, Leisure Suit Larry, etc for minor. I've said it in the Hot Coffee thread, and I'll say it again: the problem is NOT retailer compliance. Hillary can make selling M-rated games to minors a federal offense, but the kids are still going to get them, as long as the parents are going to keep buying them.

You used Playboy and R-rated movies in your example, but I think you're missing something. Parents know that Playboy is softcore porn, so they're more active in keeping it out of their kids' hands. As for movies, parents seem more flexible about letting their kids watch them... again, because they're more likely to know what kind of content will be in the movie.

Did the parents even bother to look at the rating?  NO.  It was just complete ignorance on the parents who were probably so clueless of the games content and rating that they probalby still think of gaming as Pac-Man and Mario Bros.

That's a valid point, and I agree with it. But that's why the games have ESRB ratings, complete with content descriptors on the back of the game. It's also why we try to discourage parents from buying some games for their kids... we assume they don't realize how bad it is, and they'll change their minds if they do. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. The bottom line is, even with ratings, and even with education on what the ratings mean, some parents just don't care.

[MGREXX]

The ESRB ratings system is a joke!!!!!!!

For parents, who are suppose to use them when buying games for their kids.

As a system to keep the content properly rated.

A..... J O K E !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited August 6, 2005 by MGREXX

[JB0]

The ESRB ratings system is a joke!!!!!!!

For parents, who are suppose to use them when buying games for their kids.

As a system to keep the content properly rated.

A..... J    O    K    E !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

317998[/snapback]

Actually, according to the Federal Trade Comission, the ESA is the only one of the three media organizations that has an effective self-policing ratings system(aside from being by far the most comprehensive due to the inclusion of content descriptors).

MPAA members regularly target age-inappropriate movies at children, and the RIAA's entire system consists of an "explicit content" label that's used solely to advertize the harsh language in rap CDs.

[MGREXX]

Effective???????? I think not.

Everybody knows that the sole reason for the ESRB is for the government to get off the gaming industries back. Sure it's self regulating but they have no real power or control. The ESRB is just a vail....and from the looks of it, the vail is becoming more transparent....and obsolete.

[JB0]

Effective????????  I think not.

Everybody knows that the sole reason for the ESRB is for the government to get off the gaming industries back.  Sure it's self regulating but they have no real power or control.  The ESRB is just a vail....and from the looks of it, the vail is becoming more transparent....and obsolete.

318028[/snapback]

While the reasons for their existence are as you stated, the game industry STILL has the most comprehensive and effective system.

Now moving on...

I was saying the software industry as a whole, not ESRB, was self-regulating.

And the ESRB DOES have a fair degree of power and control, despite your claims to the contrary.

http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_faqs.asp

"In the event that material that would have affected the assignment of a rating or content descriptor is found to have not been disclosed, the ESRB is empowered to compel corrective actions and impose a wide range of sanctions, including monetary fines. Corrective actions can include pulling advertising until ratings information can be corrected, re-stickering packaging with correct ratings information, recalling the product, and other steps the publisher must take."

These powers come from contracts signed by the publishers submitting the games, giving the ESRB legal teeth should a publisher refuse to comply.

You've yet to cite any evidence whatsoever of the ESRB's impotence.

It is one thing to claim something. It is quite another to make a point.

Finally, for someone of your awe-inspiring intellect( ), it's kind of sad that you can't even spell "veil" correctly.

[JsARCLIGHT]

And everybody knows the MPAA ratings system, right? What exactly is a PG-13 movie? What exactly is an R? Most parents have no clue. They just know an "R" movie is a "Bad" movie... just like most parents know a "M" game is a "Bad" game.

A little factual info on the MPAA from our friends at Wikipedia:

MPAA film rating system

The MPAA film rating system is a system used in the United States and instituted by the Motion Picture Association of America to rate a movie based on its content. It is one of various motion picture rating systems used to help patrons decide which movies may be appropriate for children.

The current MPAA movie ratings consist of:

* Rated G – GENERAL AUDIENCES: All ages admitted.

* Rated PG – PARENTAL GUIDANCE SUGGESTED: Some material may not be suitable for children.

* Rated PG-13 – PARENTS STRONGLY CAUTIONED: Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.

* Rated R – RESTRICTED: Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. (Some jurisdictions or theater companies may have a higher age.)

* Rated NC-17 – No one 17 and under admitted. (Some jurisdictions or theater companies may have a higher age.)

If a film was never submitted for a rating, the label "NR" (Not Rated) is often used; however, "NR" is not an official MPAA classification. Films that have not yet received MPAA classification, but are expected to, are often advertised with the notice, "This film is not yet rated".

History

Origins

The MPAA film rating system was instituted in November 1968 as a response to massive citizen complaints about the appearance and increase of explicit sexual content, graphic violence, scatology and related features of postmodernism in American film following the abolition, by the MPAA, of the Production Code of America in 1964.. The United States came rather late to motion picture rating, as many other countries had been using rating systems for decades.

The postmodern movement had its advantages and disadvantages: while it allowed in its earliest days (before the Code was completely abolished) for movies like Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960) to be filmed, it also sparked a rise in low-budget exploitation films that became more and more explicit in their sexual and violent changes.

In 1967, two movies, Ulysses and I'll Never Forget What's'isname, were released containing the word "FBomb" in their dialogue. This precipitated the public demand for the re-introduction of self-regulation. After a series of meetings with government representatives, the Motion Picture Association of America and National Association of Theatre Owners agreed to provide a uniform ratings system for all of its constituents' movies, a system that would be theoretically enforced by the film exhibitors. Film production companies not members of the MPAA were not affected, and the ratings system had no official, governmental enforceability due to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as interpreted in regards to matters of sexuality and violence in the media dating back to 1951's United States vs. Playboy Inc. decision.

Original ratings

The original movie ratings consisted of:

* Rated G – Suggested For GENERAL Audiences (including children).

* Rated M – Suggested For MATURE Audiences: Parental Discretion Advised.

* Rated R – RESTRICTED: Children under 17 (originally 16) not admitted unless accompanied by a parent or adult guardian; some theater chains specifically stated that the "adult guardian" must be at least 21.

* Rated X – Children Under 18 Not Admitted; the notation "Age limit may vary in certain areas" was sometimes added.

Many parents thought films rated M contained more adult content than those that were rated R; this confusion led to its replacement in 1969 by GP:

* Rated GP – General audiences/Parental guidance suggested.

In 1970 GP was changed to PG – Parental guidance suggested .

From the adoption of the system through the mid-1970s, it was not uncommon for mainstream films such as Airport, Planet of the Apes, The Odd Couple, and 2001: A Space Odyssey to be released with G ratings, but by 1978, that rating had become increasingly associated with films, often poorly made, intended specifically for children, while the PG rating became increasingly common for "family" films, with the G rating increasingly stigmatized by a public perception that a film so rated was a "dumb movie rated G for kids." This led to the PG rating becoming overloaded with everything from family films "spiced up" to avoid a G to very mature films that were "toned down" to avoid R ratings. It also led to the somewhat waggish public connotation (never intended by the MPAA) of PG as "Pretty Good."

PG-13

In 1984, the actions of Steven Spielberg led to the introduction of the PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned) rating. Violent scenes in the PG-rated films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (which he directed) and Gremlins (which he produced), were the catalyst. Public outcry about the violence led Spielberg to suggest a new PG-13 rating to Jack Valenti, who conferred with theater owners and then introduced the new rating on July 1. The rating still allows children under 13 to be admitted without a parent or guardian, but it cautions parents about potentially shocking violence or sexual content. The first movie to be released with a PG-13 rating was 1984's Red Dawn. By this point, the mass audience for films with content in the "G" or "PG" range had largely abandoned filmgoing, and filmmakers began to consciously tailor their material to ensure a "PG-13" or, even moreso, an "R" rating, focussing on the remaining audience (largely teenagers and their college-age "adult" siblings) who preferred such material.

NC-17

In the early years of the ratings system, X-rated movies such as Midnight Cowboy (1969) and A Clockwork Orange (1971) could win Academy Award nominations and awards. But the rating, which wasn't trademarked by the MPAA (as were its other ratings), was self-applied by the "adult entertainment" segment of the industry to the point where an X rating became an advertising gimmick equated strictly with film pornography.

This led to large number of newspapers and TV stations refusing to accept ads for X-rated movies, and some theaters' landlords forbade exhibition of X-rated movies. Such policies led to a compromise with the distributors of George Romero's 1979 horror film Dawn of the Dead: the audience restriction for X would be enforced, but the letter "X" itself would not appear in the film's advertisements or displays, with the following message being substituted: "There is no explicit sex in this picture; however, there are scenes of violence which may be considered shocking. No one under 17 will be admitted." The same dispensation was granted to some later horror films, including Zombie and Day of the Dead.

NC-17 rating symbol

The MPAA introduced the NC-17 (No one 17 and under admitted) rating on September 27, 1990 to differentiate MPAA-rated adult-oriented films from movies rated X by their producers. This move was largely prompted by Universal Pictures' Henry & June (1990), which would have otherwise received a dreaded X rating. The argument was that X equated with artlessness, and "Henry & June" was intended as a master-work of film: the revision of "X" to "NC-17" was intended to placate the filmmakers' complaints. However, media outlets which refused ads for X-rated titles viewed ads for NC-17 rated films as equally unsuitable, despite studio claims of such films being non-pornographic art, and thus simply transferred that policy to NC-17 titles, as did many theater landlords. A number of social conservative groups placed pressure on large video chains including Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video, as a result of which these chains do not stock NC-17 titles.

While a number of movies have been released with the NC-17 rating, none of them have been a major box-office hit. In a bold attempt to broaden the acceptance of NC-17 rated films towards the movie-going public, United Artists marketed it's big-budgeted Showgirls heavily, with splashy TV and print ads. The film became the first (and, to date, only) NC-17 rated film to open in wide release, on 1,388 screens. But the critically-savaged film's poor box-office performance only created a larger stigma towards the rating, deeming any film rated NC-17 as being "box-office poison". However, that has not stopped several "NC-17" movies from accumulating artistic praise such as Requiem for a Dream in which the lead actress, Ellen Burstyn, was nominated for Best Actress in the 2000 Academy Awardss. The "NC-17" rating has more recently been limited to films considered to appeal to a limited audience, where the limited distribution and advertising of such films is not considered a major obstacle.

The rating process

While the MPAA does not publish an official list of all the exact words, actions, and exposed body parts used to determine a movie's rating, some details have nonetheless been made available:

* if a film uses "one of the harsher sexually-derived words" (such as "Fbomb") once, it remains eligible for a PG-13 rating, provided that the word is used as an expletive and not in a sexual context;

* if such language is used more than once, or once if in a sexual context, it usually receives an R rating;

* a reference to drugs usually gets a movie a PG-13 at a minimum, though a few movies were rated PG for mild drug references;

* a "graphic" or "explicit" drug scene earning a film an R at a minimum;

* while total female nudity is permitted in an R-rated movie, any display of naked male genitalia will (usually) result in an NC-17 rating. Non-sexual male nudity is the one exception.

Members of the MPAA's Rating Board view the movie, discuss it, and vote on the film's rating. If the movie's producer is unhappy with this rating, (s)he can re-edit the film and re-submit it, or can appeal to an Appeals Board. In nearly all appeals the film was either rated R and the producer was seeking to have the rating changed to PG-13, or (occasionally) rated NC-17 and the producer was seeking to have the rating changed to R..

Effects of ratings

Legally, the rating system is entirely voluntary. However, given that MPAA member studios are expected to submit all of their theatrical releases for rating, and few mainstream producers (outside the pornography niche) are willing to bypass the rating system due to potential effects on revenues, the system has a de facto compulsory status in the industry.

One of the unintended side effects of the rating system is that the G and (in recent years) PG ratings have been associated with children's films and are widely considered to be commercially bad for films targeted at teenagers and adults. For example, the 2004 action/adventure film Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow received a PG rating, even though it was not targeted at children. The movie did not do well at the box office. In a number of cases, such as the movie Sneakers or Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie, directors have intentionally added profanity in order to avoid the G rating.

The minimum age for unaccompanied patrons at R films, and all patrons at X films, was originally set at 16 and by 1970 raised to 17 (in some areas the age may be higher still, often 18 but in rare cases as high as 21 or even 25), though theater owners could still allow children into R-rated (but, at least in theory, not X-rated) films without being accompanied by an adult since the rating system is technically voluntary and does not have the force of law behind it (those films with strong enough content to merit an X rating being presumably subject to obscenity laws at one governmental level or another). In the 1970s the East Coast-based Century theater chain used its own rating system, with only three categories instead of four: For All Ages, For Mature Audiences and No One Under 17 Admitted, with most, but not all, R-rated films receiving the middle designation, under which no age limits were enforced.

Many films which are rated R have been targeted at teenage audiences. In 2000, due to issues raised by Senator Joseph Lieberman, the National Association of Theater Owners, the major trade association in the U.S., announced it would start strict enforcement of ID checks for R-rated movies.

The 2001 independent film L.I.E. challenged its NC-17 rating and waged a publicity campaign against the arbitrary nature of the ratings system. Lot 47, the film's distributor, lost its appeal, and released the film unrated. With the recent success of another NC-17 film, The Dreamers, some film producers and directors hope that the rating may begin to lose some of its stigma and more movie theaters will consider playing such films.

Video has allowed studios to skirt the rating system and release unrated versions of films on videocassette and DVD. Sometimes these versions would have earned an NC-17 if submitted for rating, but often their unrated status is merely for marketing purposes, with the implication that the added unrated material is racier than an R rating would permit. For example, one DVD release of American Pie, rated R in its theatrical release, exclaims on the box, "UNRATED! The Version You Couldn't See In Theaters". Sometimes the difference between an R-rated feature and its unrated home video counterpart is as little as a few seconds. A number of filmmakers have also taken to filming additional footage specifically for video or DVD release, with no intention of submitting this material to the MPAA.

Some foreign and independent films do not bother to submit to the rating system, reasoning that they will not be distributed widely beyond their art-house audience, so the expense is unnecessary.

Critics of system

The movie rating system has had a number of high-profile critics. Film critic Roger Ebert argues that the system places too much emphasis on not showing sex while allowing the portrayal of massive amounts of gruesome violence. Moreover, he argues that the rating system is geared toward looking at trivial aspects of the movie (such as the number of times a profane word is used) rather than at the general theme of the movie (for example, if the movie realistically depicts the consequences of sex and violence). He has called for an A rating, to indicate films high in violence or mature content which should not be marketed to teenagers, but do not have NC-17 levels of sex (or that rating's cachet).

Perhaps with these objections in mind, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office for Film and Broadcasting (a descendent of the formerly influential National Legion of Decency) maintains its own film-classification system, which takes the overall "moral tone" (according to its point of view) of a film into account, rather than focusing on content alone.

Many critics of the system, especially independent distributors, have charged that major studios' releases often receive more lenient treatment than independent films. It is widely assumed that Saving Private Ryan, with its intense depiction of the D-Day invasion of Normandy, would have earned an NC-17 if it were not a Steven Spielberg film. The comedy Scary Movie, released by a division of The Walt Disney Company's Miramax Films, contained "strong crude sexual humor, language, drug use and violence" but was rated R, to the surprise of many reviewers and audiences; by comparison, the comparatively tamer porn spoof Orgazmo, an independent release, contained "explicit sexual content and dialogue" and received an NC-17.

Ironically, before its purchase by Disney, Miramax heads Bob and Harvey Weinstein often clashed with the MPAA, proclaimed the rating system unfair to independents, and released some films unrated to avoid an X or NC-17. Orgazmo director Trey Parker's ratings battles later inspired the (R-rated) film South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut, which directly criticized the MPAA and holds the Guinness world record for most profanity and violence in an animated feature (399 profane words, 128 offensive gestures and 221 acts of violence).

On June 13, 2004, the Harvard School of Public Health released a study documenting "ratings creep" as more adult content is allowed in films at a given rating than was allowed in the past. The study reports:

"The MPAA appears to tolerate increasingly more extreme content in any given age-based rating category over time. Movies with the same rating can differ significantly in the amount and type of potentially objectional content. Age-based ratings alone do not provide good information about the depiction of violence, sex, profanity and other content."

Films rated PG-13, in particular, seem to be exhibiting the most "ratings creep" as more features that would have received R ratings even five years ago are now receiving the lesser rating.

The CAP Ministry had noticed and reported similar results four years earlier.

(Apologies to MW for such a long post, I highlighted a lot of very important points about the MPAA)

... soooooooooo aparently the other massive ratings system in place, the MPAA, has the exact same problems as the ESRB... and exactly like the ESRB there is, has been and will be no governmental stepping in on the MPAA. Yet people love to tout how the MPAA is the superior ratings system...

All ratings are suggestions.

They carry no bond of law.

They are enforced optionally by the will of the establishments that purvey the items.

Someone please tell me how the ESRB can be "ineffective" when the MPAA uses a ratings system on which it was based and somehow the MPAA "works" and the ESRB "doesnt"?

[Hurin]

The ESRB is just a vail....and from the looks of it, the vail is becoming more transparent....and obsolete.

318028[/snapback]

Veil.

[JB0]

(Apologies to MW for such a long post, I highlighted a lot of very important points about the MPAA)

No problem at all.

A lengthy, intelligent post with interesting facts is WAY better than "U R RONG!111"

... soooooooooo aparently the other massive ratings system in place, the MPAA, has the exact same problems as the ESRB... and exactly like the ESRB there is, has been and will be no governmental stepping in on the MPAA. Yet people love to tout how the MPAA is the superior ratings system...

All ratings are suggestions.

They carry no bond of law.

They are enforced optionally by the will of the establishments that purvey the items.

Someone please tell me how the ESRB can be "ineffective" when the MPAA uses a  ratings system on which it was based and somehow the MPAA "works" and the ESRB "doesnt"?

I'd like to excerpt this factoid in your post, which, while not highlighted, is directly related to the topic at hand.

Many films which are rated R have been targeted at teenage audiences. In 2000, due to issues raised by Senator Joseph Lieberman, the National Association of Theater Owners, the major trade association in the U.S., announced it would start strict enforcement of ID checks for R-rated movies.

This is where the FTC foudn teh software industry superior to the movie industry.

While the publsihers of Fifth Element actually sued Nickelodeon for not selling childern's advertising time for its PG-13 movie, the ESA has made great effort to keep the ads targetted at the intended audience, even forming the "Advertising Review Council" to ensure ads fore a game are appropriate(no targetting little kids for your T+M games).

Admittedly, the ARC is a recent evolution, and didn't factor into the FTC review.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Just so people don't have to go looking for facts when others start lambasting the MPAA diatribe of mine above, here is a shorter listing of what the ESRB ratings entail:

(Taken from ESRB listings on their site)

EARLY CHILDHOOD

Titles rated EC - Early Childhood have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.

EVERYONE

Titles rated E - Everyone have content that may be suitable for persons ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal violence, some comic mischief and/or mild language.

EVERYONE 10+

Titles rated E10+ - Everyone 10 and older have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language, and/or minimal suggestive themes.

TEEN

Titles rated T - Teen have content that may be suitable for persons ages 13 and older. May contain violent content, mild or strong language, and/or suggestive themes.

MATURE 17+

Titles rated M - Mature have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain mature sexual themes, more intense violence and/or strong language.

ADULTS ONLY 18+

Titles rated AO - Adults Only have content suitable only for adults. Titles in this category may include graphic depictions of sex and/or violence. Adults Only products are not intended for persons under the age of 18.

RATING PENDING

Titles listed as RP - Rating Pending have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating.

ESRB Content Descriptors

* Alcohol Reference — Reference to and/or images of alcoholic beverages.

* Animated Blood — Cartoon or pixilated depictions of blood.

* Blood — Depictions of blood.

* Blood and Gore — Depictions of blood or the mutilation of body parts.

* Cartoon Violence — Violent actions involving cartoon-like characters. May include violence where a character is unharmed after the action has been inflicted.

* Comic Mischief — Scenes depicting slapstick or gross vulgar humor.

* Crude Humor — Moderately vulgar antics, including "bathroom" humor.

* Drug Reference — Reference to and/or images of illegal drugs.

* Edutainment — Content of product provides user with specific skills development or reinforcement learning within an entertainment setting; skill development is an integral part of product.

* Fantasy Violence — Violent actions of a fantasy nature, involving human or non-human characters in situations easily distinguishable from real life.

* Gambling — Betting-like behavior.

* Informational — Overall content of product contains data, facts, resource information, reference materials or instructional text.

* Intense Violence — Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, gore, weapons, and depictions of human injury and death.

* Mature Humor — Vulgar and/or crude jokes and antics, including "bathroom" humor.

* Mature Sexual Themes — Provocative material, possibly including partial nudity.

* Mild Language — Mild references to profanity, sexuality, violence, alcohol, or drug use.

* Mild Lyrics — Mild references to profanity, sexuality, violence, alcohol, or drug use in music.

* Mild Violence — Mild scenes depicting characters in unsafe and/or violent situations.

* Nudity — Graphic or prolonged depictions of nudity.

* Partial Nudity — Brief and mild depictions of nudity.

* Sexual Violence — Depictions of rape or other sexual acts.

* Some Adult Assistance May Be Needed — Early Childhood Descriptor only.

* Strong Language — Profanity and explicit references to sexuality, violence, alcohol, or drug use.

* Strong Lyrics — Profanity and explicit references to sex, violence, alcohol, or drug use in music.

* Strong Sexual Content — Graphic depiction of sexual behavior, possibly including nudity.

* Suggestive Themes — Mild provocative references or materials.

* Tobacco Reference — Reference to and/or images of tobacco products.

* Use of Drugs — The consumption or use of illegal drugs.

* Use of Alcohol — The consumption of alcoholic beverages.

* Use of Tobacco — The consumption of tobacco products.

* Violence — Scenes involving aggressive conflict.

Additionally, online games that include user-generated content (e.g., chat, maps, skins) carry the notice "Game Experience May Change During Online Play" to warn consumers that content created by players of the game has not been rated by the ESRB.

... from the way I see it the ESRB goes well out of it's way to inform parents of the content of games moreso then the MPAA. For instance... I have in my grubby hands right now my copy of GTA: San Andreas for the PC and in my other hand I have my ALIENS Director's Cut DVD. Looking at the fronts of the packages I see nothing... NOTHING on the front of the ALIENS DVD. No rating whatsoever. On the front of GTA however is an almost one inch tall monochromatic icon saying MATURE +17 "M" Content Rated by ESRB. Now onto the back of the packages... on the back of the ALIENS DVD I have to squint... squint!... to make out a very tiny almost illegible "R" with "For Monster Violence and Language" hidden next to a THX logo. It is roughly half an inch by a quarter of an inch and in a lighter typeface than the other type on the back. I actually had to LOOK FOR IT on the package and it took me quite a while. Now to GTA PC's back... there it is in the lower right corner, a very clear and large "M", MATURE +17 ESRB Content Rating, Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs... Easy to find, easy to read in type that is actually LARGER than the normal typeface of the game description. Once again it is in harsh monochromatic black and white and your eye is almost drawn to it it is so noticeable.

Now just so it doesn't appear that I am pulling favorites here, now I'm looking at the cover for TEAM AMERICA: UNRATED DVD. This DVD actually brags on it's cover that it is "Uncensored and Unrated!" in huge red type... but once again on the back the actual parental advisory is mixed in beneath the various studio credits and widescreen notifications. If not for the larger font in a big UNRATED next to it a parent would have to scour the back of the package to see the warning. And the warning itself only says "Contains Adult Language and Situations". There is GD Puppet gettin' it on in this movie! WHERE is the massive disclaimer saying "GRAPHIC PUPPET SEX?"

... yes at this point it is late here and my brain has turned back into a pumpkin.

[JB0]

Blech. I still think the E10 rating does more to confuse the issue than anything else.

Not that I think Hollywood's PG and PG13 aren't similarly messy, but they're grandfathered in. People have had two decades to get used to them, and have(though with the content being a floating target, people keep having to adjust their expectations).

On the ESRB's side, people are STILL complaining that the ratings are confusing, though not even Granas knows why. It's been a decade, and the ratings state VERY clearly what the appropriate audience is.

I think ratings categories for Everyone(G), Teens(PG13), and Mature/Adults(OMG TEH R!1111*) is a quite reasonable rating system. Adding more steps just muddies the waters.

But of course, it's all marketing. There's a collection of parents that understand the ESRB ratings denote age appropriateness, but not that they're only suggestions. Hence, E10, for kids whose parents don't grasp that they're mature enough for some T games.

Same reason M exists, really.

Retailers, not understanding that adults play games, refuse to carry AO games. So they claim they're for 17-year-olds instead of 18-year-olds. No real diffrence developmentally.

But because the law says 17 is a child and 18 is an adult, and people pretend the law actually affects biology and you magically become signifigantly diffrent on your 18th birthday, M is acceptable to retailers.

*I ALSO think that "restricted" is a poor rating label, as the word carries a certain negative connotation without meaningfully conveying information. It sounds more like it belongs at the top of a banned books list than as a descriptor on a movie intended for "mature" people.

NC17 is at least clear. No Children.

...

End tangental rant.

[JsARCLIGHT]

I personally think the ratings are just billboarding while the real thing parents should read are the contents listings. I know a lot of parents who are cool with their kids shooting the heads off of people and chopping up puppies for food but the sight of a female breast or someone saying "Sheet" puts them in a tizzy. To me, the real qualifiers of the ESRB system are those content warnings coupled with the overall rating.

My point I was trying to make (allthough very hazy) was that MPAA ratings started out painting with a very broad brush and only recently have started adopting "qualifier" content advisory listings like "Fantasy Violence" and such because parents ARE just that lax that they will think "well, THIS movie was an R and I had no problem with it so this other movie that is an R must be just the same" logic. It's also not that easy to find the "true" rating of movies... they like to bury that sort of thing next to the casting and release info... whereas the ESRB has done a very good job of plastering BOLD monochromatic labels on the fronts and backs of packages along with their verbose content descriptions. A parent can look in the same place just about on every video game package and instantly know "what the game has in it"... the same cannot be said of movies a lot of the time.

The trick, as it always has been, is getting the parent to actually take an interest in what their kids are playing. With as clear as the ESRB has made everything I'm personally shocked that everyone is STILL making a stink about it. It's like writing the words EXPLOSIVE on a box and people will still not read it and light the thing on fire. It also should be pointed out that parents don't read their own prescription drug warnings, instruction books on assembling crappy furniture and user's manuals on how to set their VCR's... It would not suprise me that if in the near future the same reactionist "do it for me, outlaw the bad things" rationalle soon bans blinking 12:00's because they are mocking their owners.

[Druna Skass]

Just the fact we're even debating this is just more proof in my eyes that people should be required to pass a test before they can legaly have kids. Some people are just too f*cking stupid to trust to correctly raise a kid.

Edited August 7, 2005 by Druna Skass

[MGREXX]

Just the fact we're even debating this is just more proof in my eyes that people should be required to pass a test before they can legaly have kids. Some people are just too f*cking stupid to trust to correctly raise a kid.

318128[/snapback]

I sure hope that you don't have any, then.

[MGREXX]

Well,

It looks like death threats have entered the spotlight:

Gamespot Link

[mechaninac]

Just the fact we're even debating this is just more proof in my eyes that people should be required to pass a test before they can legaly have kids. Some people are just too f*cking stupid to trust to correctly raise a kid.

318128[/snapback]

I sure hope that you don't have any, then.

318455[/snapback]

Wow...that was a cogent rebuke.

[JB0]

Just the fact we're even debating this is just more proof in my eyes that people should be required to pass a test before they can legaly have kids. Some people are just too f*cking stupid to trust to correctly raise a kid.

318128[/snapback]

I sure hope that you don't have any, then.

318455[/snapback]

Wow...that was a cogent rebuke.

318461[/snapback]

Now, now... write at a level appropriate to his vast intellect

I'd recommend "OMG U R TEH SUX!1111"

[Druna Skass]

Just the fact we're even debating this is just more proof in my eyes that people should be required to pass a test before they can legaly have kids. Some people are just too f*cking stupid to trust to correctly raise a kid.

318128[/snapback]

I sure hope that you don't have any, then.

318455[/snapback]

I could say the same about you buddy...

[Pat Payne]

Well,

It looks like death threats have entered the spotlight:

Gamespot Link

318458[/snapback]

This is going too far. I don't like Jack Thompson any more than anyone else on this thread, but to threaten death against him is just stupid. Not only is it against the law (terrorist threats) but it will just reinforce the image of video gamers in the eyes of Thompson and his followers. I predict that the next think that is gong to happen now is Thompson is going to come back and say: "See? THIS is indicative of the typical video game player. It proves my point that video games are bad," or words to that effect.

To the writer of the letters to Thompson, I just have this to say... actually, I'll let Arthur Rimmer say it for me...

whining.wav

[MGREXX]

I can already see the headlines this fall:

"Jack Thompson was found beat up last night in an alley. A group of disgruntled gamers broke into his house GTA:SA style, and attacked him after they heard the news that GTA "5" was cancelled due to overwhelming preasure by his agenda against violence in video games. He was beaten with baseball bats and taken to south central where he had "sex mini-games" performed on him right before they said to him "game over dude". The group said they were on an alll night GTA :SA marathon when they suddenly got the urge to "give it to the man"".

This is not news to me since there are extremists in everything......and the hardcore gamer is indeed a troublesome breed, especially when they say that videogames are their life.....

Edited August 9, 2005 by MGREXX

[Druna Skass]

This is going too far. I don't like Jack Thompson any more than anyone else on this thread, but to threaten death against him is just stupid. Not only is it against the law (terrorist threats) but it will just reinforce the image of video gamers in the eyes of Thompson and his followers. I predict that the next think that is gong to happen now is Thompson is going to come back and say: "See? THIS is indicative of the typical video game player. It proves my point that video games are bad," or words to that effect.

To the writer of the letters to Thompson, I just have this to say... actually, I'll let Arthur Rimmer say it for me...

Yeah, thats why you get rid of him and make it look like an accident...

Edited August 9, 2005 by Druna Skass

[JsARCLIGHT]

All those threats prove is that there is a fanatical extreme to everything. Getting death threats just means you have become a large enough public figure to get death threats. Hollywood celebrities get them all the time as well as many people in government, business and sports. Case in point: does anyone remember the news story of those girls who at night went to neighbors houses, rang the doorbell and left cookies for them? Well they went to this one lady's house late at night, rang the doorbel and banged on her door only to leave cookies and run away but the lady thought they where burglars or Osama Bin Laden or something and had an anxiety attack and filed charges against the girls. Well that lady started getting death threats from people days after the story broke.

There will always be a crackpot out there phoning in bomb threats, death threats, kidnapping threats, you name it... so my response to Mr. Thompson is "grow a pair and move on". If you are going to put yourself in the spotlight in a controversial way then you should expect this sort of thing from the more derranged people out there. At the same time the lunatic fringe is NOT the mainstream and they are by far NOT indicative of the average person. To generalize in that way requires downright CONGRESS level nearsightedness and prejudiced stereotyping.

But fear keeps the sheeple in line and fear generates the worst legislature... always.

[JB0]

If anyone missed it... Jacks' a loon.

http://vgcats.com/jack.php