Religion and the ESRB...

[Sand]

The ESRB is a joke. They don't even play all the games they supposedly rate. Personally I don't give a crap about the rating system and I think it needs to be abolished. If parents are so concerned about what their kids do and play they would do the research themselves and take active control of their kids' lives. They are parents. That's there freaking job.

 

 

Religious folks need to stay out of my games. Hell, I stay out of their churches so they should offer the same consideration.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Flaws of the current ESRB system notwithstanding, I strongly support the idea that there should be a ratings system to help parents, and that it should give information that parents will find useful. Parents are too busy to investigate exhaustively every topic or activity that might interest their children, and every right to ask the industry that's taking their money to help them make informed decisions. As for religion, I'd have thought it was preferable that the ESRB lead religious parents to a site that rates games according to their values - so the ESRB doesn't have to.

[Sand]

If parents are too busy then they shouldn't be parents.

[Tale]

The ESRB is a joke. They don't even play all the games they supposedly rate.

It's ridiculous to think they should. Playing the games doesn't give half the information that the ESRB is handed.

[Sand]

They should play every single game, from beginning to end, on top of the information gained from the developers/publishers so such information can be put into context. If they did that I am sure the mix ups with San Andreas and Oblivion can be avoided.

[kirottu]

If parents are too busy then they shouldn't be parents.

 

Damn parents and their need to go work to get money to buy essential stuff for living!!!

[Tale]

They should play every single game, from beginning to end, on top of the information gained from the developers/publishers so such information can be put into context. If they did that I am sure the mix ups with San Andreas and Oblivion can be avoided.

Neither what happened in San Andreas or Oblivion would have been seen from playing. The information packets they have given to them are designed to reveal context.

[Sand]

If parents are too busy then they shouldn't be parents.

 

Damn parents and their need to go work to get money to buy essential stuff for living!!!

Which is more important? The career or the kid.

[Sand]

Neither what happened in San Andreas or Oblivion would have been seen from playing. The information packets they have given to them are designed to reveal context.

 

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?

[Tale]

Neither what happened in San Andreas or Oblivion would have been seen from playing. The information packets they have given to them are designed to reveal context.

 

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.

 

"the presence in the PC version of the game of a locked-out art file that, if accessed by using an apparently unauthorized third party tool, allows the user to play the game with topless versions of female characters."

 

Playing a game hides more than it reveals and places silly budens upon the reviewers that serve no rational purpose.

 

As for the gore they cited after they started re-reviewing it because of this mod? It was a single body, only particularly viewable up close, and in the right lighting conditions. Something that is far better for a developer to show than it is for the ESRB to have to find.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Tale

[Deadly_Nightshade]

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.

 

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.

 

Religious folks need to stay out of my games. Hell, I stay out of their churches so they should offer the same consideration.

 

I, once again, agree with Sand...

 

Neither what happened in San Andreas or Oblivion would have been seen from playing. The information packets they have given to them are designed to reveal context.

 

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.

 

 

 

*

After discovering the issues in "post-release monitoring and play-testing," the ESRB initiated a review of the game's original ratings process. The board cross-examined the tape Bethesda submitted with video taken from the final release of the game, and ultimately determined that the developer understated the detail and intensity of the blood and gore in the game. In reference to the nude skin, which is inaccessible during normal play and so couldn't have been included in the taped submission, the ESRB said publishers are required "to disclose locked-out content during the rating process if it is pertinent to a rating," and that Bethesda failed to do so.

 

As a result, the ESRB said a number of corrective actions are being taken regarding the matter. Bethesda will notify retailers of the rating change, provide stores and distributors with M-rating stickers for all unsold copies of the game, and preparing new packaging with the proper rating and content descriptors for future copies of the game. Bethesda will also prepare a downloadable patch to modify the game's art archive and make the topless skin inaccessible, even on a modded PC version of the game.

[Hurlshort]

The ESRB is about a thousand times better than the MPAA. If you are a gamer in the US, you should be extremely thankful we have the ESRB, because they are one of the few things that allow the game industry to consistently shut down attempts at government regulation. If we want our industry to grow and not get stonewalled by major retailers, we need the ESRB or an equivalent source of information on content in games.

[Cantousent]

Yeah, I've known a lot of folks to revile the ESRB, but I think we'd be far, far worse if the government were compelled to create an actual body to oversee the games. ...And that's taking into account that the ESRB has some terrible practices.

[taks]

indeed, the government would really, really, really like to regulate games.

 

taks

[Deadly_Nightshade]

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

[thepixiesrock]

What about the fact that is takes "Sacrilege" into account when rating an advertisement?

 

Would you feel the same way if it wasn't religion though? What about Gun? You kill a lot of Native American's in that game, and that can be seen as extremely offensive, especially to native american people. If someone was reviewing the game for a Native American demographic, it'd be silly not to mention it, and take into account that fact if you were reveiwing the game. Surely you wouldn't attack them for their "Native American Bias." This website's demographic is a religious one, and as such they are free to review based on that, and rightfully so. It's dreadfully apparent to me, and surely, other people, that you're just reaching for something religious to angst out at.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

But wouldn't you think the ESRB would have to be more conservative by nature, considering what it is that they are doing? I mean, the system is set up to give an idea of what to expect from the game as far as content, with the intention of trying to help a parent understand what it is that their child is playing. If a parent feels that the child can handle it, then it's fine, the parent can buy it. I mean, what would a more liberal system do? It would cause contreversy for conservative people, where their kids could potentially get their hands on soemthing that they don't want them to have. The way it's set up now, parents who care that much can keep the games out of the childs hands, and other parent's who feel it's fine can get the game for the kid. Is this really a big issue for you? Kids not getting their hands on violent games easily? I mean, if that isn't even it, and you're just complaining about how you don't like it because you think it's too "conservative," then you're still being pretty ridiculous.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Would you feel the same way if it wasn't religion though? What about Gun? You kill a lot of Native American's in that game, and that can be seen as extremely offensive, especially to native american people. If someone was reviewing the game for a Native American demographic, it'd be silly not to mention it, and take into account that fact if you were reveiwing the game. Surely you wouldn't attack them for their "Native American Bias." This website's demographic is a religious one, and as such they are free to review based on that, and rightfully so. It's dreadfully apparent to me, and surely, other people, that you're just reaching for something religious to angst out at.

 

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.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

But wouldn't you think the ESRB would have to be more conservative by nature, considering what it is that they are doing? I mean, the system is set up to give an idea of what to expect from the game as far as content, with the intention of trying to help a parent understand what it is that their child is playing.

 

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.

[thepixiesrock]

Would you feel the same way if it wasn't religion though? What about Gun? You kill a lot of Native American's in that game, and that can be seen as extremely offensive, especially to native american people. If someone was reviewing the game for a Native American demographic, it'd be silly not to mention it, and take into account that fact if you were reveiwing the game. Surely you wouldn't attack them for their "Native American Bias." This website's demographic is a religious one, and as such they are free to review based on that, and rightfully so. It's dreadfully apparent to me, and surely, other people, that you're just reaching for something religious to angst out at.

 

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.

 

But to religious people, it is fact. Do you understand? The reviewer is writing a review on a religious site, to be read by like minded religious people. I specifiacally used the Native American example for the reason you stated. It was something we could all get behind to prove the point. The point is, it's a religious site, and will obviously represent a religious veiwpoint.

[thepixiesrock]

But wouldn't you think the ESRB would have to be more conservative by nature, considering what it is that they are doing? I mean, the system is set up to give an idea of what to expect from the game as far as content, with the intention of trying to help a parent understand what it is that their child is playing.

 

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.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

But to religious people, it is fact. Do you understand? The reviewer is writing a review on a religious site, to be read by like minded religious people. I specifiacally used the Native American example for the reason you stated. It was something we could all get behind to prove the point. The point is, it's a religious site, and will obviously represent a religious veiwpoint.

 

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...

[Pidesco]

They have erroneous beliefs because they believe in God, and that the son of God died and was reborn about 2000 years ago? Do you have any proof that they are wrong?

[Tale]

All I'm seeing is a double standard. People aren't allowed to criticize something based upon their religion, but you're allowed to criticize based upon them expressing their religion, you're allowed to criticize based upon even tangential associating with a site that has a religious slant. The ESRB shouldn't warn about minor instances of blood because someone might overreact, but they should avoid even linking to a site that causes you to overreact.

 

They don't endorse it. They just link to it for the documents, which are informative and reasonable, that are about helping parents behave resonsibly in their choices for their children.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Tale

[thepixiesrock]

But to religious people, it is fact. Do you understand? The reviewer is writing a review on a religious site, to be read by like minded religious people. I specifiacally used the Native American example for the reason you stated. It was something we could all get behind to prove the point. The point is, it's a religious site, and will obviously represent a religious veiwpoint.

 

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...

 

"We don't as a rule" What? Who are you speaking for? Society as a whole? I'm not sure I even follow the rest of the sentance. I'm having trouble understand what you mean by a game denying anti-holocaust. And I would expect the ESRB to link to a religious review site, because religious people buy games. And please, can you try and keep your anti-religious-ism under control, to at least show a little tact and not outright express your bias? I mean, we get it, you hate religion. It's sweet, I know, it's really cool to shout your anti-beliefs from the rooftops, we love it and all, but come on.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

But wouldn't you think the ESRB would have to be more conservative by nature, considering what it is that they are doing? I mean, the system is set up to give an idea of what to expect from the game as far as content, with the intention of trying to help a parent understand what it is that their child is playing.

 

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".