Does Zelda need an M rating way?

I like metroid as a T game, it straddles M and is about perfect in violence. Doesn't go over the top for no reason, but it's also realistic.

As for Zelda, I voted no. However, I also don't believe that an M rated Zelda game would kill the series. I wouldn't be traditional, but I think it would still sell well. Personally I would love for a proper T rated Zelda game. With violence along the lines of the Prime series. Blood, but not gore, violence for realism, not for shock value.

Unless you want to drastically change the Zelda series, there is no need to make it M rated.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  The American ratings system is ridiculous.  First of all, that games even need ratings shows how lazy and passive American parents are; they can't be bothered to actually do a google search on the game their kid is playing so they need the companies releasing them to spell it out for them.  Also, the ratings board is totally biased towards foreign companies; and by this I mean that games from Japan or elsewhere are put to harsher standards then games that come from the U.S.; I mean, SuperSmash Brawl is rated Teen?  WTF? 

So to protest this I think every game company should just release games as M, whether it's violent or not. 

Frankly I can't understand why Twilight Princess was rated Teen.  Some one please explain to me what was inappropriate for children about that game?

I actually wouldn't mind some light blood splatters when you whack on a Moblin with your sword, or shoot some dragon in the eye with an arrow, and with the way the current system is set up, I'm sure that would get it an M rating. 

It doesn't need an M rating. I don't see how that would take it back where it belongs. I think it would take it in a new direction, and not necessarily a possitive one. The only blood in the series so far was a little around the MS in the final cutscene in TP, and it should remain the only blood if you ask me.waZelda

I agree 100%

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  The American ratings system is ridiculous.  First of all, that games even need ratings shows how lazy and passive American parents are; they can't be bothered to actually do a google search on the game their kid is playing so they need the companies releasing them to spell it out for them.  Also, the ratings board is totally biased towards foreign companies; and by this I mean that games from Japan or elsewhere are put to harsher standards then games that come from the U.S.; I mean, SuperSmash Brawl is rated Teen?  WTF? 

So to protest this I think every game company should just release games as M, whether it's violent or not. 

Frankly I can't understand why Twilight Princess was rated Teen.  Some one please explain to me what was inappropriate for children about that game?

I actually wouldn't mind some light blood splatters when you whack on a Moblin with your sword, or shoot some dragon in the eye with an arrow, and with the way the current system is set up, I'm sure that would get it an M rating. 

ShootTheCore

I concur. The ESRB does need an overhaul. The AO rating is ridiculous. It's essentially a way for the ESRB to ban games since no retailer will carry AO. Plus the whole concept of a game being sold of 17 years olds is OK for M rated games, but 18 year olds if it's AO is also just plain silly. That 1 year isn't going to make a world of difference.

As for Twilight Princess. I would also like a small amount of blood. Metroid Prime amount. Gore is unnecessary, but some blood splatters and more death animations wouldn't be amiss.

well zelda has always been T or lower why should that change now?:roll:

i think so too its not any worse the any other zelda game.

You're right, it is no worse then any other Zelda game. What's gotten worse are obsessive, neurotic and over-protective American parents who are too hellbent on molly coddling their children to see that they're turning a whole generation into pansies. If TP wasn't rated Teen then you know these wretched touchy-feely parents would raise cain about it and Nintendo would end up with a boycott or something. God, sometimes this country really pisses me off.ShootTheCore

Welcome to the modern age my friend, it won't be going away anytime soon :P

the ratings are there so that 10 year olds aren't playing GTA. so parents buy their kids that game and see the content, and then want to sue the gaming companies, when they could've just read the back of the box.

thrubeingcool13

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that, for one, parents are to obsessive about what should be rated teen or not. If there must be a ratings system I think games like GTA should def be rated M; but the fact that we need a rating system at all is proof that American parents are too lazy to actually monitor what their kids are playing and are to afraid of enforcing any kind of discipline to forbid their kids from playing games like GTA; so instead of doing it themselfs they just make the companies that make the games and the companies that sell the games do it for them.

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that, for one, parents are to obsessive about what should be rated teen or not. If there must be a ratings system I think games like GTA should def be rated M; but the fact that we need a rating system at all is proof that American parents are too lazy to actually monitor what their kids are playing and are to afraid of enforcing any kind of discipline to forbid their kids from playing games like GTA; so instead of doing it themselfs they just make the companies that make the games and the companies that sell the games do it for them.ShootTheCore

It's not necessarily laziness. Ratings are here to help the parents, lets them know what to except in the blink of an eye. Not everyone has the time to constantly monitor their kids, especially in this media, where a game could last over 200 hours, as opposed to the 70-90 minutes music CDs and movies.Gamer4Iife

If a parent doesn't have the time to monitor what their kids are playing then they seriously need to reconsider their priorities, but they don't, because they're, generally, too lazy.  It's not too hard to get a good idea of what to expect from a game; you don't have to play through 200 hours to get a general idea of what the game has to offer, just google it, or go to gamespot, and read some reviews, check out some vids, etc.  I think all parents should know something about what their childs interest are, be it games, movies, music, etc., not only to monitor their kids, but to better connect with their kids; maybe if more parents did this then America wouldn't have a whole generation obsessed with mediocre and infantile crap.  If parents are incapable of making the time to understand their childs interest then they really shouldn't have had kids in the first place.

If a parent doesn't have the time to monitor what their kids are playing then they seriously need to reconsider their priorities, but they don't, because they're, generally, too lazy.  It's not too hard to get a good idea of what to expect from a game; you don't have to play through 200 hours to get a general idea of what the game has to offer, just google it, or go to gamespot, and read some reviews, check out some vids, etc.  I think all parents should know something about what their childs interest are, be it games, movies, music, etc., not only to monitor their kids, but to better connect with their kids; maybe if more parents did this then America wouldn't have a whole generation obsessed with mediocre and infantile crap.  If parents are incapable of making the time to understand their childs interest then they really shouldn't have had kids in the first place.

ShootTheCore

Honestly, I doubt anyone with a job has the time to always watch their kids, it's ridiculous to even suggest so. And even if they did, is it really such a good idea to purchase the game, let the child play it and THEN intervene ? That still means you wasted money on a game you should have never bought and your kid has seen something he or she should have never seen.

As for googling or looking on Gamespot, isn't that basically the same concept ? Ultimately, it's still the ESRB rating that will inform you of a game's suitability. The rest of the site will focus heavily on other aspects, I have never seen a single game review talking about why children shouldn't play said game.

Honestly, I doubt anyone with a job has the time to always watch their kids, it's ridiculous to even suggest so. And even if they did, is it really such a good idea to purchase the game, let the child play it and THEN intervene ? That still means you wasted money on a game you should have never bought and your kid has seen something he or she should have never seen.

Gamer4Iife

I don't think that I ever suggested, at any point, that a parent should constantly monitor their child.  And if I can work full-time and go to school full-time then I think it's perfectly possible for a parent to work and take a more active role in their childs lives.

As for googling or looking on Gamespot, isn't that basically the same concept ? Ultimately, it's still the ESRB rating that will inform you of a game's suitability. The rest of the site will focus heavily on other aspects, I have never seen a single game review talking about why children shouldn't play said game.

Gamer4Iife

And no, game reviews don't illicitly discuss whether or not games are intended for children or not; however this is another problem that the average american has, and I'm not just talking about parents here; they possess an inability to read between the lines; they have to have things spelled out for them.  You can read a game review and watch gameplay videos of a game and get a pretty good understanding of the level of gore presented in it; parents don't have to have some corporation--which doesn't know anything about their kids, their homelife or their parenting method--tell them what their kids should and should not be playing; they can just get off their lazy @$$e$ and decide it for themselves.  I mean, honestly, how long do you think it would take an average gamer, using the internet, to figure out the level of violence and adult themes in a game like Blood Rayne or Grand Theft Auto if they had never played those titles before?  About five minutes, right? 

I don't think that I ever suggested, at any point, that a parent should constantly monitor their child.  And if I can work full-time and go to school full-time then I think it's perfectly possible for a parent to work and take a more active role in their childs lives.

And no, game reviews don't illicitly discuss whether or not games are intended for children or not; however this is another problem that the average american has, and I'm not just talking about parents here; they possess an inability to read between the lines; they have to have things spelled out for them.  You can read a game review and watch gameplay videos of a game and get a pretty good understanding of the level of gore presented in it; parents don't have to have some corporation--which doesn't know anything about their kids, their homelife or their parenting method--tell them what their kids should and should not be playing; they can just get off their lazy @$$e$ and decide it for themselves.  I mean, honestly, how long do you think it would take an average gamer, using the internet, to figure out the level of violence and adult themes in a game like Blood Rayne or Grand Theft Auto if they had never played those titles before?  About five minutes, right? 

ShootTheCore

That's not the impression I got from your previous post. I believe this is what you wrote: "If a parent doesn't have the time to monitor what their kids are playing then they seriously need to reconsider their priorities", right after I said that a game could last a  ridiculous amount of time ? As you already pointed out, the parent doesn't have to watch ALL of it, but do we agree that if you plan on seriously monitoring your child, you'll need to be watching a decent amount of it, like say, at least half of it ? Working full-time and going to school is irrelevant, monitoring your kid means taking time off of your free time and if you truly work and/or go to school full time, there's no way you can pull that off. And again... even if you did, that still means your child was exposed to explicit content and you lost money buying a game with adult themes. Kind of a hassle, when you could have prevented all of this, simply by looking for the ESRB logo on the box.

I guess it's true that reading between the lines can give you an idea of what to expect in a game, but again, why bother when you could have done it 10 times faster, simply by looking at this:

That's like refusing to use the forecast channel and choosing instead to go outside with a thermometer. Do you hate ratings that much ? :P

That's not the impression I got from your previous post. I believe this is what you wrote: "If a parent doesn't have the time to monitor what their kids are playing then they seriously need to reconsider their priorities", right after I said that a game could last a ridiculous amount of time ?

Gamer4Iife

Firslyt, the full quote is this

"if a parent doesn't have the time to monitor what their kids are playing then they seriously need to reconsider their priorities, but they don't, because they're, generally, too lazy. It's not too hard to get a good idea of what to expect from a game; you don't have to play through 200 hours to get a general idea of what the game has to offer, just google it, or go to gamespot, and read some reviews, check out some vids, etc"

It's obvious from your comment that you misunderstand me when I say "monitor", although from the context of what i said I don't understand how that's possible, unless you just didn't fully read the comment. I don't define monitoring ones children as constant survelliance, but, rather, having a general idea of what they're playing. The concept that a parent would have to watch, read, listen, and/or play everything that their child does is ridiculous, and I don't think anyone here is advocating that.

As you already pointed out, the parent doesn't have to watch ALL of it, but do we agree that if you plan on seriously monitoring your child, you'll need to be watching a decent amount of it, like say, at least half of it ?

Gamer4Iife

Your comment about seriously monitoring ones children, is irrelevant, given that I've already outlined how a parent can better monitor their children by doing a minimal amount of informed research.

Working full-time and going to school is irrelevant, monitoring your kid means taking time off of your free time and if you truly work and/or go to school full time, there's no way you can pull that off.

Gamer4Iife

I fail to see how my comment referencing working and going to school is irrelevant. It wasn't meant to be a statement, like "I work full time, go to school, and monitor my children", and I'm unsure of how you mistook it as such. I don't have children, but i hate what is currently happening to America's children with the over-censoring of things that could be of value to their development, which is why I take such an interst in this subject. The statement was menat to be a comparison; that i work full time, and spend my free time in school, and that I don't see why parents can't do the same with their children. If someone has children and they are unwilling to put those children first and take time out of their free time to have a more active role in their childrens lives, then, imo, they are a failure as a parent.

And again... even if you did, that still means your child was exposed to explicit content and you lost money buying a game with adult themes. Kind of a hassle, when you could have prevented all of this, simply by looking for the ESRB logo on the box.

Gamer4Iife

And as far as having to return a game and waste money doing so, that seems a small price to pay for leaving the decision in the hands of the parents, rather then some faceless corporation. And I know that even with the ESRB ratings, parents can still purchase games for their children if they decide it's appropriate; however most American's, as I've said numerous times, are lazy, if they can leave the decision of what their child should or shouldn't be exposed to up to someone else, they will. So i don't think they should be given this option.

However, with good parenting, a child wouldn't be buying games without first getting their parents consent; giving the parent plenty of time to do enough research and come to their own decision on whether or not the game is appropriate for their kids.

I guess it's true that reading between the lines can give you an idea of what to expect in a game, but again, why bother when you could have done it 10 times faster, simply by looking at this:

Gamer4Iife

Your last statement is very fitting of this topic. Your attatching a great deal of importance to speed and ease, without seeing the bigger picture, it is a very America thing to do. I don't know if you are American or not, and I mean no insult by this comment, but I believe this is one of the many harmful tendencies so common amongst the American people. There are things that are more important then speed and ease, such as individuality. We, as individuals, need to be making the decisions of what is and is not appropriate for the youth of our society, not relying on some faceless ratings board to make that decision for us.

Do you hate ratings that much ? :P

Gamer4Iife

Yes, yes I do hate ratings that much; but I hope my comments help to give you a better understanding of why I hate them so.

[QUOTE="Gamer4Iife"][QUOTE="ShootTheCore"]

If a parent doesn't have the time to monitor what their kids are playing then they seriously need to reconsider their priorities, but they don't, because they're, generally, too lazy.  It's not too hard to get a good idea of what to expect from a game; you don't have to play through 200 hours to get a general idea of what the game has to offer, just google it, or go to gamespot, and read some reviews, check out some vids, etc.  I think all parents should know something about what their childs interest are, be it games, movies, music, etc., not only to monitor their kids, but to better connect with their kids; maybe if more parents did this then America wouldn't have a whole generation obsessed with mediocre and infantile crap.  If parents are incapable of making the time to understand their childs interest then they really shouldn't have had kids in the first place.

thrubeingcool13

Honestly, I doubt anyone with a job has the time to always watch their kids, it's ridiculous to even suggest so. And even if they did, is it really such a good idea to purchase the game, let the child play it and THEN intervene ? That still means you wasted money on a game you should have never bought and your kid has seen something he or she should have never seen.

As for googling or looking on Gamespot, isn't that basically the same concept ? Ultimately, it's still the ESRB rating that will inform you of a game's suitability. The rest of the site will focus heavily on other aspects, I have never seen a single game review talking about why children shouldn't play said game.

why can't a parent decide for themselves what their child can play. if they think their child can handle playing GTA without repeating or emulate the mature content in it, then why not let them play? 

That's essentially what the system we have in place is. The ESRB is only a guidance system. It's the parents call. I wouldn't let my theoretical 12 year old play GTA, but I probably would let him play Halo.

I agree with thrubeingcool.  Although parents can ultimately still choose whether to get their kids an M or T rated game, that ESRB rating can drastically affect the sales of any game, and can be used as a method to control the contents of games.  Not only that, but parents really need to be making this decision themselves, not letting some ratings board, that knows nothing about their children, do it for them.

As I said earlier: "And I know that even with the ESRB ratings, parents can still purchase games for their children if they decide it's appropriate; however most American's, as I've said numerous times, are lazy, if they can leave the decision of what their child should or shouldn't be exposed to up to someone else, they will. So i don't think they should be given this option."

I fail to see how my comment referencing working and going to school is irrelevant. It wasn't meant to be a statement, like "I work full time, go to school, and monitor my children", and I'm unsure of how you mistook it as such. I don't have children, but i hate what is currently happening to America's children with the over-censoring of things that could be of value to their development, which is why I take such an interst in this subject. The statement was menat to be a comparison; that i work full time, and spend my free time in school, and that I don't see why parents can't do the same with their children. If someone has children and they are unwilling to put those children first and take time out of their free time to have a more active role in their childrens lives, then, imo, they are a failure as a parent.

And as far as having to return a game and waste money doing so, that seems a small price to pay for leaving the decision in the hands of the parents, rather then some faceless corporation. And I know that even with the ESRB ratings, parents can still purchase games for their children if they decide it's appropriate; however most American's, as I've said numerous times, are lazy, if they can leave the decision of what their child should or shouldn't be exposed to up to someone else, they will. So i don't think they should be given this option.

However, with good parenting, a child wouldn't be buying games without first getting their parents consent; giving the parent plenty of time to do enough research and come to their own decision on whether or not the game is appropriate for their kids.

Your last statement is very fitting of this topic. Your attatching a great deal of importance to speed and ease, without seeing the bigger picture, it is a very America thing to do. I don't know if you are American or not, and I mean no insult by this comment, but I believe this is one of the many harmful tendencies so common amongst the American people. There are things that are more important then speed and ease, such as individuality. We, as individuals, need to be making the decisions of what is and is not appropriate for the youth of our society, not relying on some faceless ratings board to make that decision for us.

Yes, yes I do hate ratings that much; but I hope my comments help to give you a better understanding of why I hate them so.

ShootTheCore

I think you have a very biased, or otherwise ignorant, opinion of the ESRB.

The way you put it, ("that seems a small price to pay for leaving the decision in the hands of the parents, rather then some faceless corporation") these guys make all the decisions for a parent ? That's a load of bs... first of all, they're not even a corporation. :?

You do realize that it's not the rating itself that's important ? In each of their ratings, they include a bunch of content descriptors (intense violence, suggestive themes, etc...) to give an idea of what to expect in a game - THAT's usually what most people base their decisions on. That's all the ESRB does, you're still free to amke your own decision. In fact, they couldn't restrict you even they wished to, as there's absolutely no law to prevent anyone from buying a M-rated game (or even AO) to a child.

You call that laziness, but I would argue that it's efficiency. You know those things you said about reading between the lines in a game review ? Why go through all that trouble, when you got yourself a comprehensive and detailed list of those things on the back of every game box ? There's nothing wrong with taking the easy way, as long as it is as informative and gives you the same results as the hard way.

And don't get me wrong... I am 19, so the ESRB ratings have been a huge pain in the ass until very recently. I don't really like them either, but I also see why they are a necessity.

why can't a parent decide for themselves what their child can play. if they think their child can handle playing GTA without repeating or emulate the mature content in it, then why not let them play? 

thrubeingcool13

And they totally can.

but atthe same time, the ESRB  can determine a game's fate. for example, if a game gets an AO rating then no stores will sell it. so the ESRB tells people what they can play.

thrubeingcool13

Not really.

Stores refuse to sell them and console makers refuse to even have them on their systems, because that's their policy. The ESRb has nothing to do with it, you're blaming the wrong people here.

never even implied that it is corrupted. i'm just saying that the esrb can potentailly stop a game from being sold.

thrubeingcool13

Their purpose is to rate games. If they use that power to stop a game from being sold, that totally qualifies as corruption.:|

First of all, rating games, period is a corruptible offense. Gamer4life, you talk about how efficient and fast the ratings board makes it for parents, but have you even thought about why this could be bad?  As I said, it robs us of individuality as it lets a faceless board decide for us what children should and should not be playing.  Some American's would willingly let themselves be robbed of this because of the easy and efficient nature of the ratings board, but that is disgraceful in and of itself.  As I said, parents need to take a more active role in their childrens lives, and part of that is understanding their childs interest and the ratings board is just another hindrance to this.

Furthermore, Thrubeingcoolis right; stores often refuse to carry AO games, not through any choice of their own, but because of deals made with the ratings board and the various game releasers; so if the ratings board decides to give a game an AO rating, they almost, certainly, have to go back and edit it to coincide with the boards expectations.  Whether or not the ratings board is corrupt or not is superfluous, the fact that it has so much power over the fate of a game and that it has the potential to become corrupt means that it's something that needs to stop.  Anything that has the potential to become corrupt inevitably will.

Gamer4life, I think you, as well as everyone out there who either relies, of values the ratings board, need to see this documentary.  It's not about video games ratings, per say, but I think it will give you a general idea of why ratings boards are bad, and how easily they can become corrupted.

First of all, rating games, period is a corruptible offense. Gamer4life, you talk about how efficient and fast the ratings board makes it for parents, but have you even thought about why this could be bad?  As I said, it robs us of individuality as it lets a faceless board decide for us what children should and should not be playing.  Some American's would willingly let themselves be robbed of this because of the easy and efficient nature of the ratings board, but that is disgraceful in and of itself.  As I said, parents need to take a more active role in their childrens lives, and part of that is understanding their childs interest and the ratings board is just another hindrance to this.

Furthermore, Thrubeingcoolis right; stores often refuse to carry AO games, not through any choice of their own, but because of deals made with the ratings board and the various game releasers; so if the ratings board decides to give a game an AO rating, they almost, certainly, have to go back and edit it to coincide with the boards expectations.  Whether or not the ratings board is corrupt or not is superfluous, the fact that it has so much power over the fate of a game and that it has the potential to become corrupt means that it's something that needs to stop.  Anything that has the potential to become corrupt inevitably will.

Gamer4life, I think you, as well as everyone out there who either relies, of values the ratings board, need to see this documentary.  It's not about video games ratings, per say, but I think it will give you a general idea of why ratings boards are bad, and how easily they can become corrupted.

ShootTheCore

Sorry, but that doesn't even make sense. There is no evil organization that's brainwashing people... As I already said, all the ESRB does is provide content descriptors that inform you of a game's contents. It's basically the same thing as gathering info in a gaming website, but much more efficient. Just because it's easy and less time-consuming doesn't mean you lose your mental freedom all of a sudden, how the hell did you even get to that ridiculous conclusion ? If that was the case, how do you explain the amount of kids with M-rated games ?

Also, you claim that retail stores do no have much choice of their own, that they make shady deals with rating boards... -- This is all so far-fetched, do you have any concrete proof of that ? The ESRB is a self-regulatory organization, they have some degree of authority, but why would they have influence over retail stores ? Even if they attempted something like that, there's no way they can get away with it without solid reasoning behind the AO rating...

And I think it's common knowledge that anything is susceptible to corruption, that's why we have laws. Using your logic, society as a whole should just stop. >_>

Just because it's easy and less time-consuming doesn't mean you lose your mental freedom all of a sudden, how the hell did you even get to that ridiculous conclusion ? If that was the case, how do you explain the amount of kids with M-rated games ?

Gamer4Iife

Anything that undermines ones own judgement by implementing a standarized method of judgement can be considered a method of control that robs us of our mental freedoms. It is true that there is no law enforcing that children can't play M rated games; but sometimes there are things to ensure ones will be done that are even stronger then law. The ESRB knows that we are a busy, fast paced nation that's full of distraction, and that most parents don't have the time or inclination to monitor their kids. If they introduce an easy and efficient ratings system to "help" parents decide what their kids are playing, they know that the majority of parents will blindly rely on this system without question who the ESRB are and what their insentive is for rating games. In this way they introduce a method of control, and have an assurance that this method will be enforced, without ever needing to rely on legality. This is how I came to my "ridiculous" conclusion that this is a method of control that robs most people, be it unknowlingly, of their personal, intellectual and individual freedoms. It's true that many kids are allowed to play M rated games, but just as many, if not more, are not allowed to by parents who don't even know why they're making that decision.

Also, you claim that retail stores do no have much choice of their own, that they make shady deals with rating boards... -- This is all so far-fetched, do you have any concrete proof of that ? The ESRB is a self-regulatory organization, they have some degree of authority, but why would they have influence over retail stores ? Even if they attempted something like that, there's no way they can get away with it without solid reasoning behind the AO rating...

Gamer4Iife

Wow, you're lack of research on this subject is astounding. Have you ever wondered why the ESRB ratings system was approved by Congress and not the 3DO rating system, Sega's VRC, or SPA's RSAC. You do know about the congressional hearings involving video game content in the early 90's, don't you? I'll give you one guess as to who headed those hearing; Connecticut Congressman and deranged puppet master Joe Lieberman. Did you ever hear about ESA threatening legal action against 3d Realms because they continued to use the RSAC system? Did you ever wonder why the ESRB is so notorious for "leaking" information about upcoming titles before the companies making the games intended to release any information on said games? Do you even know who Doug Lowenstein is, and how he's openly said that he has a bias towards foreign games, and that he will do everything he can to make the game industry an American lead market? I don't think you understand how powerful and well connected, politically, ESA really is. They may have not forced stores to refuse to carry AO games, but, you can be darn sure, that they had influence in that decision. I implore you to watch that documentary I put in my last reply; it's about the film ratings board, but the parallels are astounding.

**EDIT 

On the subject of AO games.  Did anyone ever play Thrill Kill?  the PS game that was never released because of its violent content, but was leaked over the net?  Man, how great would it be if they remade that with up to date graphics and actually released it!  I'd totally buy that.