At some point when I wasn't paying attention, the Internet began to boil about something the pre-presidential version of Barack Obama said about video games and violence. To paraphrase, he wants ESRB ratings to be clearer and explain more thoroughly what kind of content a concerned parent might find in Kill 'Em All IV.
Admirable, but what's the point of novel-length content labels if parents refuse to bother getting past the letters?
I'm generally patient with the human race, but damn if we sure don't like putting ourselves out. The typical adult defence against change is to whine, "I don't waaaaant to!" like a three-year-old. When change inevitably happens and new methods are applied to old systems, human survival instinct automatically kicks us into the proper response, which is to sit down hard on the floor and cry "I don't get it, it's too haaaard", followed by rubbing grimy fists into tear-stained eyes. This might account for why so many parents have simply chosen to ignore the ESRB: games aren't rated with the MPAA's safe and familiar alphabet. That, or a lot of parents are simply bone lazy.
It's not to say the ESRB's system is failsafe (Rating a game "E10+" and merely citing "Suggestive Themes" is about as useful as citing it for "Peanut Butter Monkey Pants"), but the MPAA's system doesn't offer a thousand lines of detail, either. Nevertheless, movies seem to get in a lot less trouble than games. When some fish-eyed parent goes on television to scream (in between smoker's hacks) about the violence her five-year-old was exposed to in an R-rated movie, the world usually says in a collective voice, "Duh, the movie is rated R." The problem falls off the news as soon as someone takes footage of a monkey riding a dog like a horse.
Read More...
