|
nfektious Member Posts: 408 From: Registered: 10-25-2002 |
This was brought to my attention by BKewl. Originally posted to Slashdot. here is the link to the main source article: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4377901 and here is the Slashdot article: http://games.slashdot.org/games/04/02/18/0729212.shtml I would like to discuss this "revelation" and see what the opinions are here. This site being a speck in comparison to the plethura of gaming/coding sites out there, I'm sure the constituency here has a unique perspective. Matt |
|
Skynes Member Posts: 202 From: Belfast, N Ireland Registered: 01-18-2004 |
Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if games are badly rated. I'm not really one to say because I don't pay much attention to ratings :P |
|
nfektious Member Posts: 408 From: Registered: 10-25-2002 |
Those who have followed the debates and industry news over the last year (or even two) have seen lots of things - some good and some bad. The debate over ratings is a sensitive issue. With some of the recent court rulings over banning the sale of games to minors in some localities, and some state laws proposed to prevent the sale of games that promote injury to uniformed representatives of the United States, this issue has a big impact on the market as a whole. The news about ratings being less than representative of the actual content is, in my opinion, a big blow to the entire purpose of the ESRB - and in that sense has resounding effects on the industry the ESRB serves and protects. Is it possible that big government will get involved to regulate game development within the US? If so, will that be a good thing - for the big game industry or even for indie developers? In the last year, the ESRB did take steps to make their ratings more descriptive - and, in my honest opinion, better than they were before. All things considered, is that enough? It isn't about the ratings as much as it is about the process ratings are determined. Does anyone see the problem in the process? Is it a flawed process to rely on the game developer to provide the content which is the basis for the entire game's rating? Is it not a better process to have individuals actually play the game and review the game in much the same way as is done for magazines like PC Gamer, et al, and then to rate the game based on that experience? Granted, differing opinions will develop, in which case an intelligent consensus can be determined and a comprehensive rating gleaned from that. How can this possibly be a bad process or not make any rational sense? |
|
nfektious Member Posts: 408 From: Registered: 10-25-2002 |
For more discussion, I've moved my comments to the IGDA forum to see what others there think. You can monitor the discussion here: http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?s=5663fc4d3822311ba8babbf763c230b1&postid=54347#post54347 |