Deadly_Nightshade

So children should be stoned for being unruly -as should anyone who missuses the word "god"-? Biblical law is both laughable and dangerous at the same time, if only because so many nuts believe in it...

I just cannot see why that particular site has any merit, other then its value to religious Christians, or why it should be linked.

Yes that is one of the issues, because there are idiots who fit your profile. At this time the right-wing of America is pandering to religious nuts, so they're about the same thing in my opinion...

It's the fact that parents might choose not to buy a game because of information linked by the ESRB, something that might, incorrectly, give it more weight in their eyes, due to bad review - one that might a negative review for only religious reasons.

Because, as I have stated countless times already and you seem to blissfully gloss over, the site is not linked for the religious reviews. You say that, but almost every single thing in the site is laced with religion. Thus, even if they did not link to it for the views, the Christin world view is going to contaminate the majority of the the information.

Then why cannot they have a different section for religious reviews -from various religions-? That would be better then sticking this random site in the mix... Sure, but look at this:

That is correct.

If you are linking recourses that are "websites that provide information about "family friendly" video games" you should not link to a website that is rating things based of their "Christian friendliness." That is deceiving for parents who are simply looking at things that might be good for their child and do not care about whether a game breaks biblical law.

No, everyone should have an equal chance, but not if they are going to spout off about their religion, or its laws, during the review and rate the game accordingly. The same thing goes for philosophical beliefs, so, for example, a Taoist should keep the teachings of the Tao De Ching out of his, or her, review.

Then list it under religious guides, or guides for religious parents, and not with everything else as if they were equal...

An organization can have members who are liberal and still be conservative... The members do not directly affect the ratings, the people who rate the games do that... Did I say that? No, I did not. I only said that I believe the game should not have had the "blood" warning on the back.

There is proof that their only source of evidence is severely flawed... Then what was it liked for? It's opinion pieces about how games affect people's spirituality?

Sorry, it should have been anti-holocaust-denier. And I meant that you, or, at least, the majority of people, would not want games, or their advertisements, rated according to that belief - much as I do not want games or game advertisements rated for "sacrilege."

Look at TSL, it had Blood as one of the reasons it was labeled "Teen," yet there is only one, baldy rendered, pool of blood in the entire game. If the game was bloody, sure, that descriptor should be attached, but it is not - and some people might not buy the game due to the erroneous label. It was labeled "Teen" for blood and violence. It had blood, and it had violence. One spot of blood does not, in my mind, constitute a general warning about blood - look at the definition for "blood on the website, and you'll see that, if anything, it should have been "Animated Blood" ("Discolored and/or unrealistic depictions of blood") and not "blood".

But we don't, as a rule, criticize games for being "anti-holocaust denier," nor would you expect the ESRB to link to a website that reviewed games based on those people's erroneous beliefs - it does not matter what the people believe to be true...

Look at TSL, it had Blood as one of the reasons it was labeled "Teen," yet there is only one, baldy rendered, pool of blood in the entire game. If the game was bloody, sure, that descriptor should be attached, but it is not - and some people might not buy the game due to the erroneous label.

The genocidal treatment of Native Americans in a indisputable fact, unlike some made up laws that are found in a two-thousand year old book of dubious origin. Thus, I would want any review, regardless of its demographic, to mention that fact, but the reviewer should not compare the game's values to, say, the Native Americans' religious beliefs.

I agree, the ESRB is much better then government regulation...

Sounds about right...

I never said the ESRB did, nor did I say the ESRB was a Christian organization. I merely stated that I thought it pandered to much to the conservative, religious wing in America. I, once again, agree with Sand... You are saying that Oblivion's blood and gore, which was the principle reason for the change in rating, could not have been seen if they actually played the game and visited the plane of Oblivion or faced those naked torn up zombies that often had viscera hanging out? The primary cause for the change in rating was due to boobie textures that were hidden behind clothing textures that can not be removed without modifications. That is not correct as the ESRB also stated the game "involves more detailed depictions of blood and gore than were considered in the original rating, as well as the presence of a locked-out art file or "skin" that, if accessed through a third party modification to the PC version of the game, allows the user to play with topless versions of female characters*." I would say that the blood and gore were equally important tot he re-rating. *

Ok, I went to eat something and finish watching a movie, and it struck me why I really have a problem with the reviews. It's not that they are Christian, it's the fact that they are reviewing the games on their biblical merit. I enjoy things like Indiana Jones, something that is full of Christian ideas, but that is because I rate them on their merit, not how they compare to my philosophical beliefs. I really do not think it would be as big of a deal to me if the people were simply reviewing games based on a certain age range, like many other organizations, it's the biblical law stuff that really got me angry at them. Yes, I overreacted -Are you happy now Tale?-, but I also still believe that the ESRB is more conservative then it is liberal.

No, I am criticizing the ESRB, not launching a review. If I were to review the ESRB I would still mention the religion issue, but not in the manner that I am using in this tread. I am not talking about reviews of organizations, I am talking about game reviews that deliberately compare the game to religious values and rank them accordingly. I also stated that I really do not care for the ESRB anyways, so this is just another thing to add to the laundrylist.

I meant religious and/or cultural bias, not age bias. None of which is possible. Technically, you are correct, but people can choose not to bring their religion's laws into play... Just like you can choose to not bring your anti-christian views into play? Anti-religion actually, and yes, if I were to write a review I would not go about praising how it condemned religion - just as I would not necessarily rate it badly for containing religion. For example, here's a mock review: Say what you will about Vampire: The Masquerade

What about the fact that is takes "Sacrilege" into account when rating an advertisement? And why, if they are only examples, is a site like Rotten Tomatoes not included? It is much more helpful than Al Menconi Ministries. Anywho, I cannot win this argument, nor can you, but whatever the outcome I'll still consider the ESRB slanted towards the right-wing..

I meant religious and/or cultural bias, not age bias. None of which is possible. Technically, you are correct, but people can choose not to bring their religion's laws into play...