(If this is too long, sorry. :/)
TO ALL THOSE GAMERS: You're gonna need some time for this one.
I've seen a bunch of idiots online(No one here yet) that complain about this. I think it's time for some clarification.
Now, I've noticed how a lot of people complain about the ESRB(I think it means Electronic Software Ratings Board: The guys who rate games. E, T, M, ETC.) and blame them on not being able to buy games from stores. SHUT THE HELL UP. The ESRB isn't preventing you from buying games. It's the consumer(and employees of game stores....>_<) that is. Most people that are under 18 are being restricted from buying games, because of their parents, or store policy. Gamestop, for example, needs EVERYONE to show ID when buying Rated M games, or trading in games. Unless you're friends or family with the employees, this becomes a thorn in the side of the consumer. But you can't TOTALLY blame them, simply for the fact of it being a rated M game. Some parents don't give a damn about the games their kids play. Other parents however, take the ratings seriously, all in the good protective nature as parents. So when can we ACTUALLY blame anyone for the wrongful distribution of games?
It all comes up to weather stores and parents ACTUALLY start enforcing the ratings, children or otherwise. It doesn't matter if you want to get a rated M game that's totally bad-ass. If 10-14 year olds start walking out of Gamestop and such with a rated M game, what will the parents or other consumers think?
I've noticed in a LOT of gaming mags(emphasis on "LOT"), the readers always talk about how the rating system is all enforced by the consumer; others talk about how it'a all BUT enforced by the consumer. I was reading this one guy's comment to it-I'll withhold his name for the sake of privacy- that talked about the enforcement of it. Now, this guy has worked at a local game store...a Bike Shop, or a Target I think it was....and had sold a rated M game to a young kid...about 8 or so. 10 minutes later, his parents had came back and started raving and ranting at the guy for selling it. The guy had apologized to the parents, as it was one of those days where he had so many customers at his register that he couldn't monitor all the transactions. The parents understood, and all was good. A couple weeks later, he DIDN'T sell a rated M game to a 12 year old-it was Resident Evil 3 he was selling at the time-and told the kid about how it was a rated M game, so he couldn't sell it to him because he was underage. His parents came in, storming and ranting saying s**t like...."You don't have the right to tell my kid what to play and what not to play".
What am I getting at, you ask? The point is, parents HAVE the right to enforce the rating system to their kids, but some don't. When you have a parent b***h and moan at you for not selling their 12 year old son a copy of Resident Evil 3, you begin to wonder if it should be enforced at all, simply because of the ratio of parents that DON'T enforce it enough. Readers of Nintendo Power, or Game Informer, or PSM, or XBM, or Gamepro, or whatever the eff they read, always talk about how it should be enforced, or SHOULDN'T be enforced. But what about the bridge between them? What about the ones that can have a double-edged opinion about the whole thing? If you say that it isn't enforced enough, yet enforce it all the time on your kids, then what the hell is the problem? Regardless of what others are doing, or if THEY aren't enforcing it enough, YOU'RE the parent. Enforce it on your kids, but say it isn't enforcred enough to others? That's bulls**t on your part, and that makes you a hypocrite of sorts.
Now, there ARE some honorable mentions about the whole thing....supposedly, kids that are exposed to the whim of the ESRB are less likely to repeat the actions of the games that they play. Sensible, as rated E games have been, for the most part, been completely unrealistic(Aside from the sport games and Professional racing games like Gran Turismo or Fl Championship Series, but they don't REALLY count). Fictional. IT CAN'T HAPPEN. If some moron tells me that they can ride on Spyro The Dragon and battle Mutant Crocodiles and Radioactive Sheep...well, they probably need help. Point is, the lower the rating of the game, the less feedback you get from gamers.(Children specifically) Now change the setting to rated M, and you have a whole new ball game. Simply because the higher the rating, the more realistic it could be.(Just a note, it doesn't apply for games like(Unless it had sex in it, which it didn't. >.>) Dead Or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball...yeah, I bought it. That makes me a perv, I guess. But I'm a guy. To the ladies on this board, I'm sorry. Kick me in the nuts.) Take Call Of Duty:Modern Warfare 2. We aren't being attacked by terrorists(Yet....=\), but it could DEFINITELY happen. That's where parents step and argue about how it's too explicit for their kids, or whatever the hell.
Me, having owned a Playstation since 2, have had MANY exposes to games that I shouldn't have played at my age. I started with Gran Turismo. That was my first game.(I know, because I got the PS1 right before I got my Booster Shot....Damm you, medical bastards...) Suprisingly, the next game I got was Parasite Eve II. I'm pretty sure it was rated T or M. I think M. Point being, I was VERY young being exposed to a game like that. Did it affect me? No. Back then, it might've had an effect on other kids. But jump to our future. Is it REALLY better than the exposure to crime, murder, and drugs we have in our society? Parents need to stop putting the blaming the games for their kids, and start giving the banhammer to their enviroment. Unless you're a person that is not exposed to that crap, there's the reason. The ONLY extent the ESRB goes, is banning AO games.(Adult Only) The ONLY AO game I've seen that was playable(And on that note, acessible), was the San Andreas Hot Coffee mod. But since when is sex in games a problem for the kids? I mean, if they learn Sex-Ed before the age limit for sex, what's the issue? Look at the amount of kids having sex before 18. Does that fall under the ESRB then? That's just bad parenting. Kids that play games, then go join a gang is another example. The parents would firstly blame San Andreas(let's use it for this example, since it had gangs and whatbot in it) for that. But what if the kid was already in the gang? Does it still apply? Would you still blame San Andreas, even AFTER it was introduced to the kid that was already in a gang? Exactly.
If more parents want to enforce the ratings, fine. If they don't? Fine. That's up to them, as the consumer's parents, to realize the extents of the ratings, and if they should enforce them or not. But don't go putting games at fault when the child had a bad upbringing. Besides, if you, the parent, is out there doing Meth or Crack or whatever, then see your kid doing it, and he has a game that shows the use of it, them where's the influence coming from? You as the parent might've been doing it while pregnant, so if anything, it was just a stepping stone. Then you try to blame the game for it? You as a parent, suck, and shows that you don't want to take responsibility. Go to rehab, you drughead....
Thanks for reading guys, and I'll see you in the future.
PC's official soundboard guy! (According to everyone else)
ARMORED CORE 6 IS REAL LESGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO