Killer 7 should be rated AO says Florida attorney

The "AO (18+)" rating is much more strict then the "MA (17+)" rating.

SomUnknown wrote:The "AO (18+)" rating is much more strict then the "MA (17+)" rating.

Yeah. That's the point. It's absurd, the notion that the game should be rated AO for sex scenes that are often viewed in PG 13 movies.

But killing a hooker with a chainsaw while she's going down on a guy? Nope, you only have to be 17 for that.

Jack Thompson is an oppertunistic faggot who needs to get crippled already. He thinks he's on a roll because of the "Hot Coffe" shit in San Andreas, and now he's acting like a big shot.

Last I heard he wanted to AO The Sims because you could remove the mosaic blocking certian body parts.

Fortuniatly, the ESRB knows better than to deal with shits like this. Hot Coffe should have made GTA:SA AO, but the alleged scene in Killer 7 is nowhere as graphic as he'd like to think (Remember, he's never actually played any of the games he's railing on), and there is nothing to see if you remove the moasic, since the designers didn't bother to fabricate fake genetalia.

The only reason he's getting as much press as he is is because we pay him attention. There are only two ways to shut this guy up.

1. Take all his money.
2. Ignore him.

Number 2 seems like the best option at this point.

I've heard that EA (or Maxis or whoever) said they would gladly remove the blurred spots to prove him wrong. I agree with the whole Hot Coffee scandel, but it seems like this guy swears on his grave that Sims 2 has body parts, and they don't, they never have since Day 1 of the Sims.

AlexMax wrote:There are only two ways to shut this guy up.

1. Take all his money.
2. Ignore him.

Number 2 seems like the best option at this point.

Of course option 1 doesn't seem so bad either. 😃

I believe Maxis DID remove the blur and revealed... nothing. They were like barbie dolls, if you get what I mean. Also, I think this is rather appropiate...

There's a one year age difference between AO and MA. It's silly that they even have both of these ratings, they should just get rid of one of them or change AO to 21. They are almost the exact same rating.

SomUnknown wrote:There's a one year age difference between AO and MA. It's silly that they even have both of these ratings, they should just get rid of one of them or change AO to 21. They are almost the exact same rating.

The difference between M and Ao is like the difference between R and NC-17. R and NC-17 both put the age limit at 17, but they denote very different levels of content.

When I bought Resident Evil 4 I was asked to show my I.D. to verify I was 18, despite RE4 being an M rated game :shrug:

Rating systems are stupid anyway. The industry shouldn't monitor childrens access, the parents should.
A kid buys an AO game, and the parents don't find out? Who's fault is that <I>really</I>? Ratings aid, not enforce.

Yeah, as long as the parents know what the kids buy, there should be no need for banned games. I'm not a huge GTA/super violent VG fan, but it's really, really the parents faults. It's not like a movie where you can easiyl sneak into a NC17 rated one (Though rating doesn't help that either unless theres someone at the door to the screen, hehe), VGs you can monitor easily.

This whole thing is turning into another Hot Coffee issue... which seems appropiate, as it's really the same guy behind both.

I would never be in favor of banning games. However, I am fully in support of an explicit ratings system. It isn't always easy to tell by looking at a game exactly what is in it, so a ratings system is a tool that parents can use to monitor what their kids play. If a parent decides that their 10-year-old is old enough to play T rated games, that's their decision. But by knowing that the game is rated T instead of M, it can help them avoid content they do not believe is suitable for their kids.

But in the end, parents should play games before they give them off to their kids to make sure it truely is something they are comfortable with. If not, they should return the game - I believe most game stores would accept a return under such conditions.

Uh, banned games? We should all laugh at the thought. We live in America, there is no way this will ever happen. As far the rating system goes, its all f'd up. Let me get in on this one.

1. Movie ratings up until recently have not put thier contents for the rating under the letter, and still i dont think that it is mandatory that they do. (i.e. strong sexual content, drug abuse, language, etc.) So why is it a big deal if games do it or not?

2. I do believe that parents are the ones that pay thier electrical bills in the house, not thier kids. I also believe that the average 6-15 year old kid does not pay for thier own video games or counsoles.

3. Therefore, if the parent is not responsible enough to know what thier kid is playing and then goes into an outrage becuase of what they bought, (even if they didn't buy the video game they still bought the xbox or PS2) then they the parent should be smacked across the head, NOT the video game makers. This people is what we call "responsibility". a real quality lacking in our society today.

4. Politicians need to stay out of personal enterprise. This is a country of freedom, and the government has no buisness telling what can and cannot be made from publishers. I believe this has been established by our fore-fathers. (see the bill of rights for more info.) It is a waste of taxpayers dollars to have a public figure try and tell us which video games kids should play that is the parents job.

5. The video game rating system is a joke anyway. Why don't they rate video games like movies, (g, pg, r, etc.) that way there is no confusion.

Bottom line is, people are stupid and vidoe games are fun. That's all there is too it.
😃

I'm confused with the whole rating system in the first place.

With the MPA ratings, we have G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17
PG has no age limit. I don't see one stated on their site, so when is a kid to young to go in by theirself? R can have under age accompanied by an adult, but NC-17 is no exceptions. That rating system seems a bit to broad.

ESRB has EC, E, E10+, T, M, AO.
They even have age limits on the early games. EC is 3 and up and E isn't really for everyone because its only for 6 and up. If they have a 3 year difference between those two, then why only 1 year for M and AO?

Thats not the confusing part. Its the way ESRB rate their games. Do they look at what the game is about, or just whats in the game? I was surprised the other day when a little kid wanted to buy The Incredibles for the Gamecube and his parents noticed it was rated T. They asked me why. Heck, I never even knew, and I didn't know what to say. I always assumed it was E.

You think if its based on a movie rated PG, which has no age limit BTW, why would it have an age limit of 13 on the game. While games such as Need For Speed have lyrics for their songs that I wouldn't consider suitable for 6 yr olds. And whats stranger, those games are based on something that is illegal, right? Thats nice. Lets let our kids play games where they run from the cops and break the law, but tell them its not ok to play a disney cartoon game until their 13. Isn't something wrong with that? I just hope they correct issues like this in the future.

And I think that some, think its up to retails to tell the kids no. Lets blame the retailers who don't enforce the ratings. Don't the parents care? They should be the best rating system. I've said the same thing mentioned above by Cloral to my customers. I've told parents to play the game and see what they think before handing it to their children if they're unsure. I fully agree with a rating system. I think games need it just like movies. But, if its going to get totally ignored by its buyers (including parents), then whats the point?

I'd say around 80% of the people I sell M rated games too, have their parents get it anyway. Why? Because they've seen worse stuff on TV. We clearly state that it has "Sex, nudity, lots of violence and very very strong language", and they get it anyway. I wonder what some of those parents are letting those little kids watch?

If politicians REALLY want to get in on this, why don't they do their best to get the parents to take notice and tell the parents to enforce the ratings, instead of trying to ban games, blame retailers, blame publishers and developers and whatnot. And play the game, or do the research. If you don't know anything about a product except for what you see, or what you want to know, then you loose credibility as soon as you open your mouth. And this goes for anything.

Of course, I do blame Rockstar for the Hot Coffee thing. If the company didn't want people to see it, then why did they leave it on the disc? Not everyone who plays games is dumber then they are. People WILL find a way to access stuff, and to work around problems. Sometimes I wonder if they did it on purpose for publicity.

Politicians aren't doing it for the kids. They are doing it for themselves. They do things like that to get attension to get a better job and what not. To get votes too.

By the way, I'm pretty sure the whole ESRB ratings system is voluntary. If you didn't want to, you could not have your game bear any rating. You can do the same for movies, but then you have NR, Not Rated, which I believe for admission is considered to be NC17.

Yes, you can choose not to have your games rated (if I understand you correctly), but it won't be sold retail unless otherwise. I believe its mandatory to have your game rated by the ESRB if you wish to sale it through retail chains. And, you have to pay money to have it rated as well. Which could be a lot of money for independent game designers wishing to have their game rated.

Ouch. Those poor independents. I can see why there's so few of them.

I say scrap the whole ESRB system and use the one for movies, since that works so well. I'd suggest the British one (U, PG, 12A [What used to be 12 has been changed to 12A, so that people younger then 12 can get in if they have someone older then 12 accompanying them], 15, 18), but it may well be that others are better. Honestly, blaming the game-makers is a bit pointless, really. They try to make people aware of what's in the games, but it's the parents and (to a lesser degree) the stores that sell them that are more to blame.

The biggest difference between M and AO is not the age, but the fact that most retailers don't carry AO games, for obvious reasosn. This, if a game is rated AO, it pretty much destroys it's sales/

The game ratings system is horse shit. A friend of mine has a game called "Boktai 2" or something that's rated T. Where it says why it's rated T, it says because of fantasy violence and blood. But there is absolutely no blood in the game at all.

Most games nowadays are atleast T. The only games I know of that are rated E are some sports games, and games like Wario Ware. They could put higher ratings on games, but in most places that won't make a difference. The only stores that actually care about selling games to the respective age of kids are stores in big citys. In small towns that have stores like that, the staff couldn't care less. For example, when I went to Montreal to buy a game, I told the clerk what I wanted and he said to come to cash and pay for it when I'm ready, and he walked off to the cash with the game I wanted. But just the other day, I went to my local Wal_Mart and told the guy what game I wanted he just opened the glass let take what game I wanted and walked off and let me hold the game and browse around a bit longer. I could have taken a game that's rated 17+ and he wouldn't have cared.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go play my T rated Harry Potter game.

They should make the Adult rating a 21+ instead of 18+ or 17+(whatever it is)

Then make sure that all games that have the Adult rating can only be brought by an adult with an ID(Drivers License) for proof of age.

I heard that a video showing most, if not all, of the game's content is presented, and the ESRB rates the respective games based on that footage(could be why some ratings are odd). It's really the parent's faut for their kids getting access to such content. I believe a good solution would be an updated rating system, which would consist of ratings for under 10, 10-16, 16-18 and 18+ with at least 3 words depicting why the game was given the specific rating.

For any game rated 16 or higher, a certified adult's forced presence and/or signature on the back of the game would be required. That way, if they claim to "not know what the game was like" and sue or do some other stupid thing, the signer of that game can then be owned.

Okay, seriously. AO = 21? Why the fuck would you want to do that? Do you think that I, as a 17 year old male have not seen vast libraries of pornography online? Do you think that as a 20 year old I will not be able to handle seeing large amounts of violence and nudity? Please. I can handle that now. I don't need someone to tell me that I can't buy a freaking VIDEO GAME until I'm 21. That's horseshit.

Master Ghaleon wrote:They should make the Adult rating a 21+ instead of 18+ or 17+(whatever it is)

Then make sure that all games that have the Adult rating can only be brought by an adult with an ID(Drivers License) for proof of age.

Although that might help in some circumstances, the age of majority is often 18 in other places.

Like here, in the UK. My sister couldn't wait to start driving lessons when she turned 18 (she passed earlier this week and we've hardly seen the car since).

Let's scrap the current system and use this one instead:

E : Everyone. Your 2 week old baby could play this.
C : Children. Because they'll forgive the blandness of our quick movie cash-ins.
T : Teens. Action packed goodness, but within reason, eh?
A : Adults. Guns, Violence, Woohoo!
X : XXX. Nudge nudge, say no more.

Whether you can buy an Adult game depends on where you live, but I'd recommend 16/18. Preferably 16, because then 18 could be for XXX games.