Right now the problem is simply there isn't enough distinction between M and AO. 17-18? I mean, what's that? Make the borders more clear here. And because the borders are so unclear, alot of retailers think AO is some type of skanky porn game where M is just some explosions and stuff. It's just doesn't make much sense.
the_mad_madman
I think you are right, the problem is that the AO rating becomes effectively a soft ban on anything other than PC games. It has become like the NC-17 rating -- extremely limiting the audience by carrying a huge number of outlets that refuse to carry the game with the extreme rating, resulting in a rating that isn't so much used to inform the public of content (i.e. it's purpose) but to impune a group of artists for their choice of content or pressure them into modifying it in order to keep it going. It is easy to say that the industry itself is just self-censoring, but an "industry" is not a separate interest vs. the interests of the artists that make it up. In this case, I give more credence to those who buck the trends of an industry than I do those who play within their own set of ill-defined rules about expression.
In that regard, I fully realize that Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony are doing nothing intrinsically wrong by refusing to allow AO rated games on their platforms, just as I think that outlets that don't want to carry such games are doing nothing wrong, and I wouldn't force them to do otherwise for the world. This isn't really a typical libertarian rant about the role of Government because overall Government has played a very limited role in this (though it does play some role). Given that the ESRB is an industry panel rather than a Government panel, it is effectively the industry trying to police itself, and as a customer of that industry, I am not happy when very adult content is kept from my very adult eyes based on this policing. I see very little choice other than to express my vocal opposition to the power behind the AO rating, and my financial opposition when it is convenient to me personally.
In order to think that the rating is just doing its intended job, I have to formulate an opinion on what that job is and what it should be. I think that what it should be is a rating that informs the buying public that content in this case is only for adults. In other words, regardless of what the intent of the AO rating was initially, what it has become is the industry's "scarlet letter(s)". Its role in the ESRB has become more than just a content report, and more of a moral judgement made for others. As a customer of that industry, I'd like to be able to decide whether that content is good or bad for myself, rather than allow the industry to do that deciding as a whole. I don't think that can easily be done without removing the tool that has been used in that way, namely, the AO rating itself. Of course, the danger is that it will just turn the M-rating into such the same sort of tool, but I don't personally think that's going to happen. The M-rating and AO-rating being in such close age-proximity allowed one rating to naturally fill the role of informer and the other to naturally fill the role of regulator, and even with a move of M to 16, I don't think the stigma has been or will be removed. With only one rating (which is really all that is needed), there are no differences to use as bargaining chips. Additionally, console makers and retail outlets will have much less motivation to exclude what went from a small group of games branded with a mark of Cain to a larger group of games that fit the tastes of increasingly adult gamers. If M is to become a 16-only rating, then AO should be at least renamed to remove the "X-rated" stigma it has unfortunately come to represent.
I'd like to close this by saying that there is more to opposing a particular industry or Government practice than just stating that it is within its own carefully defined rules, and thus "doing its job" per se. That some individual, group, or Government is following a given policy doesn't answer the more important question, which is in this case, does the policy work properly by a rational standard that protects everyone's ability to make their own decisions about the content they choose to see. That they are following a policy isn't enough, it needs to be a policy that works for its stated purpose -- to inform choices. Policy by itself is just a neutral cavity -- it can be the means by which choice is protected in this regard, or it can be the means by which human beings actively prevent other human beings from seeing content they object to. So to that end, policies can be enacted by the ESRB which make this ideal possible, or they can be enacted in such a way that they ultimately lead to the same result as a Government ban on such material, even if they aren't using the same overall means to that end. I would rather have more of the former and none of the latter.
Log in to comment