« Link of the Day | Main | Link of the Day - Sex and Race in Second Life »
September 26, 2005
Topic for Discussion - Should ratings just measure sex and violence?
To take one example of many, let's look at Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. It's rated E, for everyone, because there is no bad language, minimal cartoon violence, no sex, and it's pretty much as unobjectionable as you'd find in a family game. Obviously this is a game for kids.
Except, have you ever seen a six-year-old play a Zelda game? There's a lot of reading and some fairly obscure vocabulary ("Ocarina", for example) that is way beyond most first-graders I've seen... and it's necessary to read and understand the words to progress in the game. The controller is a bit large and unwieldy for small hands. Some mandatory puzzles in the game require abstract thinking that isn't usually developed until the age of 10 or so (and still manages to throw many adults for a loop, even then). The material may not be objectionable, but it's not what I'd call "age-appropriate content" either, purely on mental difficulty.
Where's the ESRB descriptor for "requires abstract puzzle-solving skills", or "uses vocabulary and requires mathematical skills of 3rd grade and above", or "uses control mechanisms that are difficult for handspans of less than 3 inches"?
Should the ESRB's job be to rate games based purely on objectionable material, or should they cover the more broad case of age-appropriateness? Where does the ESRB's responsibility end in the area of providing purchasing guidelines for parents?
Let's see some discussion. If you think the ratings should only cover sex and violence, why should it be so limited? If you think the ratings should also cover non-objectionable content, why do you suppose it's not being done already?
Posted by IanSchreiber at September 26, 2005 10:36 AM | Discuss this post on our forums