US Considering Universal Ratings System For Entertainment
In our estimation, the ESRB has done an excellent job over the years. But due to recent Congressional investigations into potentially harmful media content, there is now a call to have one universal ratings system for movies, TV, and video games.
This according to a Bloomberg report, where it says the FCC will consider a universal rating system, the ESA has stated in the past that the FCC has no jurisdiction over the game industry, and ESA senior vice president for communications and industry affairs Rich Taylor said the ESRB is "considered by parents, family advocates, the Federal Trade Commission, and elected officials as the gold standard in providing caregivers with the information they need to make the right choices for their families." He's clearly not a big advocate of this new universal system, which he says would "confuse consumers, violate the Constitution's first amendment, and are a solution in search of a problem." We have to agree with him because we believe the MPAA is actually more at fault in this matter than the ESRB; in looking at how movies and games are rated, we think games are rated on a much stricter scale. It's downright amazing that some PG-13 movies weren't rated R, but you'll almost never find a T-rated video game that will piss off parents or other anti-game activists. So we say, just leave the ESRB alone. They're doing their job.
We're not entirely sure if a universal ratings system would "confuse" consumers - once they got used to it, of course - but we still agree with Taylor. If it ain't broke...don't damn fix it.
8/28/2009 Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (116 posts)
Highlander
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 11:31:05 PM
Good god, people are so quick to react with the typical knee-jerk reaction. They can't even stop to think about the idea and evaluate it, before spewing the predictable reactionary response to any suggestion that government might try to apply a rule to something.
Last edited by Highlander on 8/28/2009 11:32:16 PM
Wage SLAVES
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 2:08:45 AM
-Bob Novak
@highlander
Dude are you American? If you are you should very well know we can't trust our politicians further than we can throw 'em. I agree that we gotta keep their money greased hands off our favorite industry. Ben's right if it ain't broke don't fix it!
There is nothing more patriotic than to have your Reticle of Scrutiny permanently afixed on government.
Last edited by Wage SLAVES on 8/29/2009 2:09:46 AM
sunspider13
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:01:30 AM
No I don't think this is a knee jerk reaction as you put it. I do agree that the government has the best intentions at heart, namely to serve the public. However in my eyes streamlining the rating system, as the article points out, will not only confuse the public, but imo is just one step away from regulation. Heck even the FTC has said that the ESRB rating system is 'the gold standard'.
I'm assuming you know how the ESRB comes up with the ratings so I won't bore you with that. I much rather trust impartial parents to give their unbiased opinions on a game than some government employed lackey with an agenda trying to make a name for themselves.
Ok sorry for the rant, but when you mix government with videogames I don't think the end result will be better for us fans. Just my two cents.
Last edited by sunspider13 on 8/29/2009 3:01:59 AM
Highlander
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:23:42 AM
@WageSlave
Keep your "reticule of scrutiny fixed on government"? keep "their (government's) money greased hands" out of our industry? Are you serious? Please stop and think about this for a moment. You are basically saying that we should apply all our scrutiny to our politicians, the ones we democratically elect every 4 years, but not the captains and generals of industry, who were elected by no one, and are answerable to very, very few if any. You talk about money greased hands, and yet who is it in the last 5 years that has screwed the economy to the floor? Was it the government, or was it the privately run finance industry? Madoff - was he a member of the government? He sure as hell had money greased hands, greased with the money of millions of victims.
I'm so sick of people who throw their full weight of mistrust at the government and show what amounts to blind faith in industry. Industry exists to exploit consumers and basically extract money from consumers for the profit of the corporation. Government exists to serve the people and everything it does is in one way or another for the country. If you don't like the bums in charge of the company, you're hosed, they're in charge and you're not. With government you re-elect them regularly, so if you don't like them, don't vote for them. Don't anyone try to question my patriotism or understanding of civics. I sometimes try to imagine how the founding fathers of the US would react to current times in the US, and I think that they would turn away in shame, which to me at least is a true tragedy.
I'm done with this thread.
Last edited by Highlander on 8/29/2009 3:24:11 AM
Wage SLAVES
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:42:18 AM
You my friend don't know a thing about socialism.
"Democracy is the road to Socialism,"
--Karl Marx--
Every day in school I recall this...
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
We are supposed to be a Republic.
Do you really believe ONE man (Madoff) ran this thing by himself? What about the Banker Bailout? Pretty fascist in my book, no? How much of that 23.7 trillion did you get?
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aY0tX8UysIaM
Last edited by Wage SLAVES on 8/29/2009 3:48:07 AM
Mornelithe
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 9:12:05 AM
Jawknee
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 12:54:23 PM
Last edited by Jawknee on 8/29/2009 12:56:54 PM
Jawknee
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 1:22:16 PM
that's the problem high, they aren't serving the people they are serving them sevles and their special interest groups like the labor unions and trial lawyers. this government seeks more and more control over our lives with each passing day. If you don't see that you need to wake up. You accuse us of having blind faith in industry, it's not blind, I trust my fellow American more then I trust my government. Private industry seeks to make a profit, they have a reason to cater to me. If they do a poor job then I go some where else. Government on The other hand doesn't have any incentive to be honest. They screw us over, their response is "let then eat cake". Seems your the one with a blind faith. Your an intellegent person Highlander, this should be clear as day. Governmet has the worst track record of making peoples lives better by getting involved in private matters. There's not a single thing in the private sector that they haven't ruined or made more expensive by getting involved. Government only does two things well. Fight wars and waste our money.
Byakko2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 2:07:50 PM
JMO_INDY
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 2:56:55 PM
SHADOW [Moderator]
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 4:16:44 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 4:46:48 PM
Highlander
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 6:41:16 PM
You are both so very wrong. I cannot even begin to tell you how wrong you are. It saddens me that you are so utterly incorrect, and yet you are totally convinced of your correctness. Why your minds are so very closed tight I do not know. One point I must reply to. WageSlave talked of the pledge of allegiance and the republic of the US as if somehow being a republic was incompatible with socialism. Socialism is an economic system, not a form of government. There are plenty of socialist republics. A republic is a form of government with an elected leader rather than a monarch.
Neither of you understand what socialism is, nor do I think either of you has any experience with real socialism. I have, I've lived under a socialist government, and in socialist countries. Real socialism my friends, is not even remotely like what we have in the US, or Canada, or the UK. Not...even...remotely.
Good day to you.
Jawknee
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 6:59:24 PM
DaNgerSteVe
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 9:59:25 PM
Reply
Mornelithe
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 11:16:32 AM
fluffer nutter
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 1:30:15 AM
Highlander
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:25:04 AM
fluffer nutter
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:41:23 AM
Mornelithe
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 9:12:57 AM
fluffer nutter
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 10:02:22 AM
Mornelithe
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 10:33:16 AM
The MPAA employ ratings boards, that have absolutely NO oversight, via the government, or civilian populace. The only people with a say, are the ones actually making the decisions of what gets what rating. Major heads of the largest film studios in the world. And a few members of the cloth (Christian/Catholic only). Interestingly, these folks seem to only be interested in censoring sex. Violence, it seems, is appropriate for everyone.
I've mentioned the name before, but 'This Film is Not yet Rated' is an absolutely horrifying look into how movie ratings are set in this country. Absolutely not, no civilian authority. Government through and through, people we can actually remove from office if we don't like how it's going.
fluffer nutter
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 11:00:13 AM
Mornelithe
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 11:17:04 AM
Why is this a big deal? Because, ratings dictate your ability to sell your movie. G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17, XXX etc.. Whichever rating your movie is branded with (and this is particularly difficult on independant studios/producers), directly impacts it's ability to be marketed.
Anything branded NC-17+ doesn't hit theaters, nor does it get any shelf space in retail chains. This is a fact, and you'd think, well, it's NC-17 for a reason. Funny thing is, some of these reasons are so paper thin, completely biased, or not even following in lines with movies they've already rated. It's almost a, well, I feel this way today, so this movie gets NC-17. As I said though, watch 'This Film is Not yet Rated' (documentary), it explains this whole issue much much better than I can.
My basic point though, is that yes, we can always be mistrustful of the government...but at least that can be changed. Whereas, with the civilian setup we currently have, the average citizen has absolutely no say in how movies are rated, or whom is part of the ratings board.
fluffer nutter
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 11:29:28 AM
Mornelithe
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 11:43:44 AM
Which is why, given over to Government control, we could hold them accountable when they step over the line (The saving grace here, is that even if the ratings board screws over the movie, we can still find it online via retailers...or other means), remove them from their position, and replace them with someone a bit more fair-minded/open.
As it stands now though, we have CEO's/CFO's of major movie distributors, people of _one_ specific religious group (it doesn't matter which), all deciding what we can and cannot watch. Even worse though, all of these people, represent the upper crust of American's (Financially speaking). Kirby Dick, is the man who made the movie 'This Film is Not yet Rated', he makes a very VERY good case that the MPAA not only has a monopoly on their ratings, given their closed standards, but that they give special consideration to movies made by MPAA members (Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, Columbia Pictures, Paramount Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal Studios and Warner Bros.), whereas independant films/producers aren't.
It's really sickening to understand how the system works. Just terribly sickening.
Mornelithe
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 12:11:02 PM
The creators, producers, and distributors of these entertainment medium, however, should have absolutely no involvement in the ratings process, as they are all financially tied into each decision they make in that regard. This is where the big conflict of interest comes from. Giving a movie they don't own, a good rating, gives that movie X thousands/millions of dollars in revenue that doesn't go to them in any way. You follow? It should be the common joe as well as the rich folk. We all seek entertainment....
Last edited by Mornelithe on 8/29/2009 12:11:54 PM
fluffer nutter
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:03:57 PM
Last edited by fluffer nutter on 8/29/2009 3:04:43 PM
Mornelithe
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:47:24 PM
The thing is, these people make money...telling us what entertainment is. You know? That really bothers me. Because they can single-handedly, prevent the mainstream from seeing something that really broadens our horizons. As well as inserting their own small view of world opinion, and enforcing it upon the whole at large. I realize that big business would do everything in it's power to prevent such a thing from occuring...but we as the consumer should also have the right to dictate the manner in which our entertainment is rated/censored etc... IF we choose it at all.
TGG
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 10:32:18 PM
Reply
I don't see why they all can't operate separately. On the other hand, I do want to hear the FCC's reasoning, just to see why they think it would.
Dancemachine55
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 10:39:01 PM
Reply
The colour coding with the rating works really well too. Green for G, yellow for PG, Blue for M, red for MA15+, and for movies, black for R18+. Contents of the product are described next to the rating.
eg. Gears of War on PC here has a red MA15+ on the cover with "strong violence and course language" written next to it. Now, even the most oblivious customer who knows nothing of video games can have no trouble knowing which games are suitable for their 9 year old boy.
Last edited by Dancemachine55 on 8/28/2009 10:39:58 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 10:46:16 PM
Highlander
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 11:25:05 PM
tes37
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 11:44:23 PM
tes37
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 11:54:57 PM
Highlander
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 12:26:53 AM
It might seem ironic, considering I think that a single system would be better, but the current TV/movie rating system needs an overhaul to re-baseline what the ratings mean, and make sure that they are applied consistently. They would do well to consider a system like the one in the UK that basically places an age limit on the audience of movies based on the content. In the US system, until you get to the 'R' classification, there is no restriction at all. What's the point of a G, PG or PG-13 rating in that situation? They're all the same, a person of any age can watch a movie with any of these ratings without adult supervision. The only rating that means anything material is the 'R' classification.
Gregory Freeman
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 2:19:41 AM
Jawknee
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 6:48:02 PM
Deleted User
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 10:41:54 PM
Reply
WorldEndsWithMe
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 10:48:22 PM
Reply
tes37
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 10:55:47 PM
Highlander
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 11:23:14 PM
Last edited by Highlander on 8/28/2009 11:23:53 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 11:55:40 PM
Highlander
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 11:17:04 PM
Gregory Freeman
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 2:22:49 AM
Wage SLAVES
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 2:36:48 AM
Highlander
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:26:11 AM
Scarecrow
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 12:40:52 PM
Jawknee
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 1:04:27 PM
Socialism promotes laziness and mediocrity.Keep that crap out of the US. Freedom above all. Americans fled Europe to get away from the tyrannies of socialism. Going back now is insane.
Scarecrow, look up the defenition of fascism. It's has nothing to do with business but everything to do with statism.
Last edited by Jawknee on 8/29/2009 1:07:17 PM
Byakko2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 1:22:59 PM
I refuse to be sucked into this debate as it's going off the deep end and it's becoming less about games and more about politics.
Byakko2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 1:22:59 PM
I refuse to be sucked into this debate as it's going off the deep end and it's becoming less about games and more about politics.
Jawknee
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 1:27:55 PM
I know the FCC has nothing to do with the socialism. I was responding to the ents above.
Last edited by Jawknee on 8/29/2009 1:31:11 PM
JMO_INDY
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:00:10 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:06:47 PM
JMO_INDY
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 4:13:55 PM
King_Krollen
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 4:34:00 PM
Highlander
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 11:22:00 PM
Reply
If the ratings for movies, TV and games were all the same, then no brain dead parent would ever be able to claim that they didn't know what the rating meant/ Games are getting to the point of being as big as the movies, it's time they were rated in the same manner.
Frankly, uniting the ratings of games with the ones used for movies and TV would be a step towards less political interference with video gaming. Right now the rating system is voluntary and politicians with an election are a danger because they can argue that games are dangerously unregulated. With the FCC backed ratings as applied in the movie industry, that argument cannot be made.
I like this idea a lot.
Masterofallz
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 11:39:22 PM
Countries have their own 'sensitivity'. In Europe, for example, they dont care about the more sexual contents. But they do care alot about too much violence and blood.
Now look at America, we dont care about violence or blood. And we are the exact same opposite as Europe. We freak out about nudity on commercials less than Europe.
Look at Australia, they want to ban God of War 3.
Universal ratings would be a bad idea from the start. Countries will disagree. They will fight and argue about whats right and whats not.
Then they are going to come to a compromise, and we will all regret it.
Last edited by Masterofallz on 8/28/2009 11:41:10 PM
NoSmokingBandit
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 11:42:27 PM
Its not like its going to make games harder to get or anything, its just going to make it much easier for parents to make sure their kids dont get a copy of GTA. Lets face it, parents arent the most tech-savvy people out there, so anything we can do to help them make better decisions for their kids will be great.
Its not like the FCC is going to start censoring games, they just want to consolidate the ratings system, and i am 100% with them.
Masterofallz:
This isnt going to affect Europe or Australia. The FCC has no jurisdiction there. If i read the article correctly, "universal" just means it is one rating system for all media in the US. Instead of one rating system for movies and another for games they want to wrap it all up into one. It will help parents know what games are all about. People can easily tell if they want their kids to see a movie based on the rating, but parents dont play a lot of video games and arent familiar with where the lines are drawn between each tier in the ESRB system. This wont hurt anyone, it just makes the whole process more streamlined.
Last edited by NoSmokingBandit on 8/28/2009 11:47:05 PM
Highlander
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 11:43:48 PM
Where I can't agree is regarding confusion brought about by a single rating system. If you have a single rating system for TV, movies and games that universally tells you when something is suitable or not abused on the age of the audience, how can that possibly be more confusing than two or more separate systems doing the same thing in slightly different ways?
Now, for this to work, the current rating system needs to be re-evaluated and a baseline established. A PG-13 movie needs to be a movie that is targeted at audiences that include 13 yearolds. Clearly the way the ratings are currently implemented this is not the case. But it's not like the implementation of the ESRB ratings is perfect either.
@Masterofallz
The FCC only regulates the US ratings, they do not rate the content, nor do they apply ratings outside the US. Any unification if TV, movie and game ratings under the FCC would only relate to the US. So your concerns over whether European morality would affect ratings here is misplaced.
Last edited by Highlander on 8/28/2009 11:46:30 PM
Masterofallz
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 11:52:11 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 12:01:31 AM
fluffer nutter
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 1:36:33 AM
Gregory Freeman
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 2:26:13 AM
Highlander
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:27:38 AM
dart_driver
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 1:57:04 PM
Qwarktast1c
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 12:59:54 AM
Reply
NoSmokingBandit
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 9:50:43 AM
We already have a rating system, how will switching over to a different, universal rating system change games? I'll let you in on a secret:
GAMES WONT CHANGE
Only the rating system is going to change. I dont get why everyone has their panties in a bunch about having an "R" on the box instead of "MA"
___________
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 2:18:07 AM
Reply
there was suppose to be a paper submitted to parliament 3 MONTHS! AGO to discuss if there should be a R18+ or not.
god knows how hes got away with it, normally you can loose your seat for missing a dead line, its BS.
theres only 1 attorney general thats stopping it, thats the stupid thing there could be 1 million attorney generals approving it but if theres 1 opposed it cant pass.
it should be a minority rules.
he doesnt want a R18+ here because kids could have access to the material which is a load of BS retailers are so strict on R18 stuff its not funny.
ive never been asked for ID when buying something MA not even when i just turned 15.
but every single time i go to a R movie or buy booze they ask for ID every time without fail.
it would be harder for kids to access the material if it was R18+.
they ban fear 2 and fallout 3 because its not appropriate for kids so fallout 3 changed 1 name, and fear 2 appealed and both got through.
im starting to think its got nothing to do with kids, im starting to think its whos the highest bidder.
nope sorry you dident pay us enough pay more or your not allowed to sell your game here.
democracy my A$$ when were told what we can and cant play.
soon were going to be told what shoes were allowed to wear out.
or what pajamas were allowed to wear to bed.
Gregory Freeman
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 2:31:43 AM
Reply
Blink182Fan99
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 6:47:54 AM
Reply
Why confuse people? Keep it simple :p
This is all my opinion of course. Across the pond, you may find yours simpler?
fluffer nutter
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 10:04:43 AM
Lairfan
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 9:42:56 AM
Reply
I know, I know, "This will make it so much easier for parents to..." Bah! If parents don't know what a rating on a game means, they need to find out for themselves. All you have to do is flip a game over, see the words beside the rating, and you know what a game entails. For example, on the back of Resistance 2, right beside the M rating it says, "Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, and Strong Language." If that doesn't serve as a red flag for someone buying a game for their 6 year old, then that person should go learn how to be a parent.
This is the same for all games in the US. Eventually, through looking at the backs of so many games, parents should be able to figure out what M entails, T entails, and so on and so forth. And if they really don't want to put the effort into doing that, why not just ask the clerk, "Hey, is this game alright for my 8 year old?"
There are already so many ways parents can keep bad games away from their kids, we don't need government to come in and regulate the ratings for them. America's parent today are too lazy, thinking government will regulate content for them. But it all comes back down to the homefront, the parents. And if they don't do their jobs, no matter how much government legislation there is, its not gonna work.
Jawknee
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 12:31:07 PM
media and press. He thinks its just swell that Chavez shut down opposing TV stations and news papers in Venezula. Americans were fooled into thinking they were voting for a moderate demccrat. Instead we got a neo-communist and a supporter of tyrants and their methods.
Last edited by Jawknee on 8/29/2009 12:40:37 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:14:07 PM
JMO_INDY
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 5:11:36 PM
Byakko2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 5:22:44 PM
Jawknee
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 6:31:57 PM
Jawknee
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 6:43:11 PM
fluffer nutter
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 11:33:21 PM
Oliver
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 11:39:22 AM
Reply
Jawknee
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 12:13:35 PM
Reply
sadley Washington these days have a habbit ot destroying freedom in the name of "the children". I agree some content could be inappropriate for children but ultimatly that's up to the parents to decide.
Anyone know which law makers are sponsering this bill? I'm a member of the republican party but to my great disappointment they havent been very good allies to gamers. I'd be interested to see who's idea this was.
Jawknee
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 12:24:54 PM
Now that I see Rockefellers name on this I'm not surprised. This asshat has been pushing for more an more government control over Americans lives for decades. These statist "liberals" need to be removed from Washington. Just wait you neo-marxists. Were coming for you in 2010. Take your hopenchange and stuff it.
On top of this, Rockefeller is sponsering another bill that would give The One authority to turn off the private sectors access to the Internet in the name of "protecting against a cyberattack". These people are out of their minds. Our founders are rollng over in their graves.
Byakko2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 1:12:13 PM
Jawknee
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 1:23:29 PM
GuernicaReborn
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 1:32:46 PM
Reply
dart_driver
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 1:47:16 PM
fluffer nutter
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:10:53 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:08:41 PM
Reply
fluffer nutter
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:12:23 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:15:36 PM
JMO_INDY
Sunday, August 30, 2009 @ 9:32:37 PM
TubbyUrchin
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:17:00 PM
Reply
Oyashiro
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 3:21:40 PM
Reply
T = PG/PG13
M = R
AO = NC-17/X
There is not much of a deference. The only problem I have is that a lot of PG-13 films I've seen should have clearly been rated R. I don't care if they just change the names of the ratings, just as long as they don't touch how the ESRB actually rates the games.
WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 4:47:49 PM
Jawknee
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 6:35:34 PM
DarkManX
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 4:08:20 PM
Reply
Byakko2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 4:16:40 PM
Reply
There. All your insane theories about seizing our video games to these "socialistic communists" have been debunked by my simple, yet genius idea. Some of you are using this as an excuse to lay on some insults towards Obama and that's sad. The worst part is, you're often putting no weight behind any of it, just calling him a communist, or socialist. Save those politics for the forums or some other channel. This is supposed to be about games and what a universal rating system means to us.
Myself, I think it's a great idea. And as Highlander said above where he mentions how games are becoming much like movies, they really should be rated as such. I too see this as less confusing for the average parent who's never been into a game shop to understand the ratings.
THEVERDIN
Saturday, August 29, 2009 @ 11:10:49 PM
King James
Sunday, August 30, 2009 @ 2:59:09 AM
Reply
3 things:
-Stop watching the digital cancer (most cable news networks).
-Ignorance may be bliss, but you still sound like an idiot. Stay in school children.
-No matter what rating system the games switch to...parents will still blame others for their negligence. And lil' Timmy will still be playing GTA.
Oh yea and for shock value:
-HEALTHCARE REFORM WILL KILL YOUR GRANDPARENTS!
-Governments can't run a business.
-It okay to tap your neighbors phones, if they're Middle Eastern.
-OBAMA'S A SOCIALIST NAZI! HEAR MY VOICE! HEAR MY VOICE! HEAR MY VOICE!
-And leave Sarah Palin alone!!! She's not a quitter!
Last edited by King James on 8/30/2009 3:06:08 AM
Random_Steve
Sunday, August 30, 2009 @ 2:42:03 PM
Reply

See Full Image









sunspider13
Reply
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 9:59:10 PM
Last edited by sunspider13 on 8/28/2009 9:59:43 PM