gaming The 'AO' Rating

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,617]

A very controversial topic, at least in the media, towards gaming is the AO or Adults Only ESRB rating. This is a rating that is rarely seen and for obvious reasons that I will explain in a bit. The 3 main contributors to this rating are mostly clear pornographic material, extreme violence or a game that involves real gambling, the controversy comes from the the first two.

 

The rating is called 'Adults Only' yet those same adults are not allowed to choose if they want the game or not.

 

When a game receives this rating, the big 3, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, will refuse distribution of that game entirely, meaning PC is the only place where AO games can exist and even then, most places will also refuse to stock games of this nature. So to have your game to be rated AO is almost a death sentence for the game outright, meaning you must remove whatever is making the rating happen.

 

With all of this stigma and fear surrounding this rating, it has made me think about it a lot. Personally, I find all of the drama towards it to be absolute garbage. Simply put, I think the AO rating should be fully allowed on all fronts. Even in a place like Walmart, they could have the game behind the counter. A game with an AO rating shouldn't be demonized for containing the content that deserves that rating. The entire point of the ESRB was to tell people what was in a game and this helps them decide on whether the game is right for them or anyone else. To completely disallow games of this nature is basically telling people 'You cannot make your own decisions'. Kids getting ahold of a game like this is also not part of the equation. The very moment you buy a game, it is the responsibility of YOU to keep the game out of the hands of those you find it inappropriate for. The ESRB has already done their part in full. If little Jimmy gets his hands on a game that is rated Mature for example, you have absolutely no right to call the company and complain that Jimmy is being corrupted by the evil game that clearly has a big M in the corner telling you exactly who the intended audience is. The same should be applied to AO games.

 

Pornography is a medium that is totally valid and sold at a lot of different stores, in fact it is a massive industry. Adults can make the decision if that is what they want. If we can allow both pornographic films and even unrated versions of movies that display extreme violence and nudity, then I don't see where AO rated games are getting fair treatment.

 

A good example of this is Manhunt 2. A game that received the AO rating on PC and originally on consoles because of its realistic depiction of murder and having it be a main focus. It had to be censored to get the M rating on consoles and thus actually be released on those systems. Brutally killing people is horrible in a game, but having blurry versions of those same brutal killings is perfectly fine. While the difference is obviously the interactivity, we have films like SAW and others where the entire movie focuses around the brutal murder and torture of innocent people, and these films obviously display these acts of violence far more realistically than most games could. You can go to Walmart at any time and buy an unrated collection of these horrid films any time you wish though. Yet the very moment a game makes violence to this level its focal point, people lose their shit and demand the game be banned and censored if it gets the AO rating especially.

 

You want to buy this game that contains pornographic material or extreme violence? Too bad! You aren't allowed to make that decision, because these dimwitted companies think they are 'protecting the kids' when the ESRB exists to tell you to not let kids play it anyways.

 

As you can see, this topic puts me into ranting mode and I have thought about it for years. The banning of AO games on most levels is, to me, an insult to media in general and an insult to the decision making abilities of most people.

 

What are your thoughts? Do you agree or no?

[Malcontent 196]

I've always said, that the parents need to be more responsible and research the games and movies they let their children watch and play.

 

All too often do we see this and last generation get to the point where they don't really want to interact with their children and buy them expensive "babysitting" tools like consoles, PC's, movies and the lot, and then get upset when they see something they don't like, when if they'd done their research, it would have been obvious what they were buying.

 

It all boils down to responsibility. The lack thereof in some cases, on the part of the parents.

[ChocolateCrane 156]

 

 

When a game receives this rating, the big 3, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, will refuse distribution of that game entirely, meaning PC is the only place where AO games can exist and even then, most places will also refuse to stock games of this nature. So to have your game to be rated AO is almost a death sentence for the game outright, meaning you must remove whatever is making the rating happen.

 

^ I think this is extremely stupid. These companies (well outside of Nintendo) all cater to an adult demographic above all else. I see nothing wrong with AO games on PS4 or Xbox platforms (hell, if you ask me, Mortal Kombat X SHOULD be rated AO).

[GrimGrimoire 4,973]

The reason is because the entertainment industry and the public in general still considers games for 'kids' despite the fact more adults than ever play them. It is a stereotype that is still clinging on that strangely has not broken. Even today as big as the industry has become, you can still walk into a public place and announce you love gaming and get a lot of raised eyebrows if not outright disdain for doing something "meant for kids" And although gamers at large don't bat an eye where gaming is at and where it is going.... a lot of others are just still so utterly in the dark. It is why whenever someone commits a crime and blames it on any game or has some sort of social faux pas... the media and parent groups still keep pulling up the original Doom as justification for their stance. That game has not been relevant in forever, and yet so many seem to think that is what it is all about.

 

That being said, I do feel an outlet has the right to take a stance on what they will and will not sell. Whether it is made by a single person or a corporation... it is their business, so they should have the right to stock the items they choose for purchase. I do think it is silly that some don't sell them, but it is their loss in the end. Even AO games are really not that tough to get if you want them. If I ran a business and felt a certain way about something, I would not like being told I HAD TO SELL IT if I did not like or agree with the product. So that does not bother me at all... I find it odd sometimes, but it is their call. It is their risk not ours.

 

As for the censoring.. again, just as I said in a thread about rating on films.... it is up to the distributor and what they are wanting to achieve. By making their game AO, they are limiting their audience, both in places that will stock the game, and people that may buy the game... so they have to decide.... do they want to sell their vision, or do they want to sell more copies? Do they want to make a statement or do they not want the possible (bad) publicity? There is no right or wrong answer honestly...  it is really up to them. They don't have to censor anything or cut anything... they are always free to release it however they like (unless it has illegal content). But by doing so they limit where the game can be sold and who may potentially buy it. They also risk some group or another going after them for something in a game meant for mature adults that ended up in the hands of someone else and a situation arises. You have to remember, when shit hits the fan, everyone is going to get covered and people want to know who did it. We can all stand around talking about what is right and wrong, fair or unfair, moral or immoral, but it is not us having to stand in a court room trying to justify why we feel it is OK to create a game where shoving chainsaws into schoolgirls is entertainment, while girl scout troop 44's parents sit behind us demanding justice because someone not quite right in the head took the game literally.

 

So yeah, I agree that it is one sided in situations like SAW vs. Manhunt and such, but until the industry takes a stance and the public gets it through their heads that games are for everybody these days, and there will be content for all types of audiences.... I don't see anything changing. That being said... it is slowly changing, just not nearly as fast as the technology is advancing and the envelope is being pushed.

[EpicEnergy 23,220]

In my opinion any game with nudity or sex should be given the AO rating, kids these days are exposed too much to those things and it's not good for that to happen. The AO rating should stay, and in my opinion be a little more strict. I mean, movies and TV shows have the R rating so why can't video games have something similar? It's not like you can't let kids watch R rated movies or AO rated video games, parents still have a choice but at the same time they are made aware of the content within the movie/game so they know what their kids are seeing and experiencing.

[Jon the VGNerd 885]

The fact that the AO rating even existed baffles me, since none of the games ever have AO rating at all. Hatred is the only game that has AO rating and even that's considered baffling since pretty much all violent games receive the M rating and nothing else. The ESRB is an absolute joke.

[DixonTheAdversary 1,632]

Not like an M rating does much to prevent a kid getting a game anyways, parents just buy to make their little brats happy without knowing what's in the game. So what's the point of not selling AO games, if people are still getting offended over M rated games. It was your conscious decision to purchase the game in the first place, a quick Google search would tell you what you were gonna see in a game.