Print

Author Topic: Regarding Ratings  (Read 4110 times)

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2010, 08:12:31 AM »
Even with sexual content, the ESRB is rather inconsistent; Shin Megami Tensei: Strange Journey features a giant naked humanoid monster with eight large breasts and a penis-tentacle monster riding a chariot, and both of these figures are displayed in full in-game, but that game is only rated M.

(On a similar note, I want to know how Machete got an R rating.)

Black Mage

  • HP 1018 MP 685
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2010, 03:27:24 PM »
Snake.  The obvious joke about buttocks aside, he has rather realistic weapons compared to other characters'.  They didn't even let him use guns, but apparently lots of explosives were enough to warrant a T.

Melee was also rated Teen, so I'm not sure why you keep harping on things only in Brawl.

« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2010, 04:50:17 PM »
They're operating under the assumption that Melee would have been E10+ had that rating existed at the time.

Warp: You can show all the nudity you want and even non-interactive sex at an M-rating. It seems to be controllable sex that gets you slapped with AO. (See: San Andreas, Indigo Prophecy, Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude (controllable) vs. BioWare games, Heavy Rain, The Witcher (non-controllable))

Black Mage

  • HP 1018 MP 685
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2010, 05:00:01 PM »
Fair enough then, I guess I missed that somewhere along the line. My mistake.

Looking at descriptions, I have to agree that Melee would probably have been evaluated at E10+, but under that assumption I don't see why Brawl would get a T rating instead. I'm not convinced Turtlekid's two examples would be enough to bump it up.

I can't help but wonder if precedent plays some role in the rating of games within a series. I wouldn't imagine it would, and that each game is 'tested' individually and impartially, but I admittedly can offer nothing but unsubstantiated conjecture. 

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2010, 05:28:58 PM »
A better question might be of how the ESRB actually evaluates games - that is, whether or not they actually play games in their entirety.

ShadowBrain

  • Ridiculously relevant
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2010, 05:44:41 PM »
An even better question is, from the viewpoint that the ESRB is run by human beings (ergo, the less work they can get away with, the better), whether or not they think it's worth the time to play games in a series instead of just reusing the last rating for consistency's sake.
"Mario is your oyster." ~The Chef

« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2010, 05:55:33 PM »
A better question might be of how the ESRB actually evaluates games - that is, whether or not they actually play games in their entirety.

They don't: Rather, publishers have to submit footage of "pertinent content" for them to assess.

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/faq.jsp#16
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2010, 06:06:48 PM »
Well, there you go. Take it away, Chupperson.

Print