Quote
Originally posted by: BlackNMild2k1
I think Ian is right on this one "Violence should always be judged by intent".
This statement right here "The Wii doesn't make a game any more violent just because of it's controller." is where your whole argument is flawed. For me to move a joystick and then press a button to strangle someone is a whole lot different than me actually simulating the motions with the wiimote to get the same result. That by default makes the game more violent.
The minute you actually start acting out these acts of violence, even in a simulated way, makes the game more realistic and therefore more violent. The ratings on Wii games should be more heavily enforced, by the parents of the children and the store clerks thats are selling the games to them. I don't think the games should be rated any different than the same versions on other systems, as they have the same content, but ID's should definately be checked and rating should be enforced.
I see your point, but still, I disagree. Video games are fantasy to begin with. The Wii controls might help to make that fantasy more satisfactory by acting out real-world gestures, but at the end of the day it's not going to make you any more violent than you were prior to playing. Unless you are incapable of separating fantasy from reality, this shouldn't be a factor when it comes down to rating the game. Ratings should be based on content alone. Though, I could definitely see the Wii generating even more of a buzz if the other versions of
Manhunt 2 (PS2/PSP) received an "M" rating and the Wii version was "AO" due it's controls. Then again just typing that made me realize how ridiculous this whole argument/proposal of a more rigid ratings system really is.
Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
Rhoq, an AO rating is not censorship, it's rating a title.
Violence in video games will be an issue until something else comes along to influence people. The fact is that the ESRB does do an exceptionally good job of rating the games most of the time, and parents and stores need to step up to the plate and pay attention to them. It shouldn't be the job of the government to raise every single kid in this world.
An "AO" rating by the ESRB is the equivalent of an NC-17 or X rating by the MPAA in the US. These ratings are too taboo for most mainstream retail outlets and they usually refuse to stock content with these ratings, so yes these ratings are a form of censorship. Unless the game features graphic sexual content, rape or having to kill someone in a manner which involves hacking up the body parts, then I see no need for anything stronger than an "M" rating.
I'm also 31 years old and couldn't care less about kids playing a game that isn't intended for them. It's their parents' problem and quite frankly, if they want to play it bad enough I'm sure sure there will always be a "friend" who has it and they will be exposed to it anyways.