I just thought it was interesting, as described in a letter I wrote that is attached, that one of only nine links to review sites on the ESRB webpage goes to a Christian ministry's page. Does anyone else think that's a little strange?

 

My main concern about the ESRB is that it seems to be too connected to the conservative, religious side of the American populous. For example, when I when to its website one of only nine links was to

Here's his rating sheet if anyone is interested...

 

*New Computer and Video Game Grading Template

 

By Al Menconi

January 1, 2005

 

 

Grading Key:

Instructions: Put an

Let's be sincere here.

 

This is the page: http://www.esrb.org/about/resources.jsp

This is the section that link is under: Examples of websites that provide information about "family friendly" video games:

Also note the total number of links there is not what Nightshade would have one believe, it is far more than 9. He's using omission as a deceptive tool.

 

It the last link in that section. And it's not uncommon for the term "family friendly" to have a religious bend to it. There's no issue here. It's an "example" of a website that focuses on "family friendly" media.

Edited November 26, 200718 yr by Tale

since the ESRB is not a government mandated rating organization (or system), there's not a whole lot you can do about it. the problem is that there are enough consumers out there that want something on the box to give them a hint as to its content. the best way to fight the system is to boycott, but i guarantee the stores that sell the most games are looking at which audience is larger: the one that doesn't care about ratings and the one that does. the latter is much, much, much larger in the end.

 

btw, saying

 

My main concern about the ESRB is that it seems to be too connected to the conservative, religious side of the American populous.

 

with shock seems a little odd to me, actually. the conservative religious side (extreme right) of the american populous is probably on the order of 20%, so 1/9 is actually low if you want to divvy it up. those are also the people that are concerned about video game content. the hard left probably does not care as much, if at all.

 

personally, i think ratings are a joke, at least in terms of using them to restrict the audience. i don't mind a sticker on the box that gives you a hint as to content (movies in particular, since it is difficult to find out what they contain). it should be left up to parents to restrict their children, and the ratings should simply serve as indicators of what to expect.

 

taks

Under the section "Examples of websites that provide information about "family friendly" video games" there are only nine links, the rest are under different a categories. Unlike Tale, I do take issue with it being linked, from what I already consider to be a conservative organization - this just strengthens my feelings against the ESRB in general. If I wanted an organization that feed things to fudies I would join up with Robertson...

Edited November 26, 200718 yr by Deadly_Nightshade

personally, i think ratings are a joke, at least in terms of using them to restrict the audience. i don't mind a sticker on the box that gives you a hint as to content (movies in particular, since it is difficult to find out what they contain). it should be left up to parents to restrict their children, and the ratings should simply serve as indicators of what to expect.

 

I agree with you, on both issues here - ratings should only be used as guidelines for parents, or older teens, to use if needed....

Have you actually read this so-called "fundies" reviews? They're all very moderate except for ones with excessive blood.

 

He really liked the Orange Box, but agrees that it's intended for Mature audiences. He also seems to feel Runescape is very boring.

 

Halo 3 is very entertaining, especially if you are into science fiction. If it were not for the blood, Halo 3 could probably have been rated T. Personally I really enjoyed this game and I would have no problem recommending any of the Halo games to anyone 17 years of age and older. As the parent, however, it is up to you decide what is best for your family.

OMG, HE'S A FUNDIE NUTJOB! Only they could like Halo.

 

Overlord comes in at a 68 (D+) on the Al Menconi rating scale. Normally I like to play a game in its entirety before I review it, but it is partly because of the content that I did not complete this game all the way through. Although, I did find Overlord to be entertaining at first, I also found the game to quickly get repetitive which made me quickly get bored (the other reason I did not finish the game.) With that said, I can not recommend this game for young children. If you are an adult, however, and Overlord interests you I would strongly recommend renting the game before you decide to buy.

I take issue with this review, because I really liked this game.

Edited November 26, 200718 yr by Tale

Have you actually read this so-called "fundies" reviews? They're all very moderate except for ones with excessive blood.

 

Yes, and I also read these parts:

While not directly related to the occult, some of the fantasy in Oblivion seems to be inspired from occult practices. For example you have to choose an astrological sign to be born under. Also, in one part of the game I found a book called "Manual of Spellcraft." I also learned the art of alchemy, which allowed me to create different types of potions by mixing different ingredients together. There are also some missions that involve fighting spirits and vampires. In addition, Tamriel has nine gods and a list of guidelines called "The Ten Commands".

 

There is some mild language used throughout the game (mostly the words hell and damn), but the Lord's name in vain was frequently used. (However, not as GD, but rather as expressions like "Oh my G--!" or "My G--!")

 

One line in particular put me off. Jade's uncle impatiently exclaims "Sweet Jesus!" when frustrated early in the game. It was disappointing to hear that when the rest of the game was relatively clean of foul language.

 

Beyond Good and Evil receives a 69% (D+) for violence, using Jesus' name inappropriately, and glamorizing rebellion against authority while justifying questionable actions taken in the name of a cause.

 

About the time I started to play the game as Kurtis, I decided to stop, I really felt that it was diving excessively into the occult. According to the Bible, the Nephilim really used to exist, and alchemy is a real form of witchcraft. Even though it was the villain, Eckhardt, who was involved in these things, I knew that this was not the kind of game I wanted to entertain myself with.

 

Therefore, Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness an 60 (D-) for excessive violence and strong occult and supernatural themes.

 

The general environment of a character that you create will definitely be in a magic environment, but occult can be avoided. There are many cases, for instance in the case of a mage, where you can use non-occult magic.

 

But with warlocks, and shadow priests, there is a heavy occult focus, inflicting damage on others with the use of demons, and with shadow magic. Of course this is all optional, depending on which class you choose for your character.

 

While the majority of the content could have come from any conservative-leaning review, this site focuses on petty biblical things as well. Do I really care if "god's name is used in vain" or if there is "strong occult?" No, I do not give a damn about that sort of content...

He really liked the Orange Box, but agrees that it's intended for Mature audiences. He also seems to feel Runescape is very boring.

 

So, he liked one game, or two games, or a million games, the fact remains that I do not care how a game matches his biblical world view, nor should a rating reflect his religious viewpoint. If he wants to rate games, fine. But please don't send other people to his site if they are looking for non-biased, good reviews...

He really liked the Orange Box, but agrees that it's intended for Mature audiences. He also seems to feel Runescape is very boring.

 

So, he liked one game, or two games, or a million games, the fact remains that I do not care how a game matches his biblical world view, nor should a rating reflect his religious viewpoint. If he wants to rate games, fine. But please don't send other people to his site if they are looking for non-biased, good reviews...

If they're looking for non-biased, good reviews, they shouldn't be looking for examples of "family friendly" information sites. They should, perhaps, go to the websites that "Examples of websites that provide demos, screen shots and reviews of computer and video games:"

* Computer and Video Games

* GameRankings

* Game Revolution

* GameSpot

* GameSpy

* IGN

 

OH CRAP, THEY MISSED METACRITIC!

 

Also, they're obviously in Gamespot's and IGN's pocket, since they list two network sites for both of these. Each of them takes 33% for that network! BIAS!

 

Finding people taking God's name in vain offensive does not make one a "fundie." The fact that he can recommend violent games to people and recommends letting people make decisions for their own households obviously shows he's a moderate.

Edited November 26, 200718 yr by Tale

If they're looking for non-biased, good reviews, they shouldn't be looking for examples of "family friendly" information sites.

 

I meant religious and/or cultural bias, not age bias.

If they're looking for non-biased, good reviews, they shouldn't be looking for examples of "family friendly" information sites.

 

I meant religious and/or cultural bias, not age bias.

None of which is possible.

 

Your argument is poor. You're showing more of an extremist stance than the people you're claiming are fundies do.

 

The existence of a moderate religious slanted website under a "family friendly information" subsection of a website that also features many other links does not show an overall religious conservative slant. You lack an understanding of what conservative and fundamentalist actually mean.

Edited November 26, 200718 yr by Tale

If they're looking for non-biased, good reviews, they shouldn't be looking for examples of "family friendly" information sites.

 

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...

I just thought it was interesting, as described in a letter I wrote that is attached, that one of only nine links to review sites on the ESRB webpage goes to a Christian ministry's page. Does anyone else think that's a little strange?

 

My main concern about the ESRB is that it seems to be too connected to the conservative, religious side of the American populous. For example, when I when to its website one of only nine links was to

If they're looking for non-biased, good reviews, they shouldn't be looking for examples of "family friendly" information sites.

 

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?

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..

Rotten Tomatoes does not focus on "family friendly" information. However, they do link Gamerankings!

If they're looking for non-biased, good reviews, they shouldn't be looking for examples of "family friendly" information sites.

 

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

However, you are reviewing the ESRB poorly for having a link to a religious website.

 

Mentions religion once: (-100000 points)

 

They place single link, not one they say is for reviews, and they even state they don't endorse it and you're condemning them. Obviously you can't keep your anti-christian views aside.

Edited November 26, 200718 yr by Tale

However, you are reviewing the ESRB poorly for having a link to a religious website.

 

Mentions religion once: (-100000 points)

 

LOL!

However, you are reviewing the ESRB poorly for having a link to a religious website.

 

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.

Edited November 26, 200718 yr by Deadly_Nightshade

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.

So ignore it (it's a voluntary system, right?). Try using PEGI instead.

Interesting topic.

 

I'm concerned that he considers sports violence two points lower than cartoon violence. Which suggests to me that he isn't giving either one a correct rating.

 

Also compare this with violence against robots is only one point below hurting people.

 

However, overall I think it is very good that he is so clear and open about the scoring system. Rating is a difficult business at the best of times.

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.

The ESRB is not a Christian organizations. It does not rate things based on "biblical law." This link has nothing to do with ESRB's rating system.

 

A tidbit of information for you, this is who the ESRB is: Activision, Atari, Capcom, Crave Entertainment, Disney Interactive Studios, Eidos Interactive, Electronic Arts, Her Interactive, id Software, Konami, LucasArts, Microsoft, Midway Games, Namco Bandai, Nintendo, NovaLogic, SEGA, Sony Computer Entertainment, Square Enix, Take Two Interactive, THQ, Ubisoft, Vivendi Universal Games, Warner Bros. Interactive, and Wild Tangent.

 

They are most certainly not Al Menconi.

Edited November 26, 200718 yr by Tale