Again and again, I'm struck with the hypocrisy of the game rating system. I guess the delineation is blood. A realistic FPS that doesn't show any blood gets a "T" rating (that's EA's forte with the recent MoH ; European Assault and Goldeneye : RA), while a clearly fantasy one with green blood is "M" (um, what's that xbox game where you're a space marine and shoot at aliens?). I find this policy stupid. Any game that puts you in the person of someone who wields guns and shoots at other people is intended for mature audiences, right? I mean it is a killing simulation and therefor inappropriate for children, IMO. Who cares if you see blood; dead is dead.

Now I can see a clear delineation with a total fantasy game (like Oddworld Stranger or Metroid Prime) being appropriate for older kids, or to the other extreme (Soldier Of Fortune II with its graphic violence), but to make it just based on seeing blood or not is just dumb. If these guidelines were too tough to implement, I'd rather have them all rated "M" rather than something this arbitrary. Anyone agree with me?

Halo is the game and there is blood in Halo. Try shooting a soldier.

I think the rule is FPS with blood = M, FPS with no blood = T. Blood is just there as a guideline I suppose. The whole ratings of video games is a tricky area. Most games have killing in them. Most games aren't rated M.

I think you're right about "blood" being the issue. Even when there's other gore in a game blood still seems to be what they get hung up on. It's like what I heard George Romero say on the Dawn of the Dead commentary. Tom Savini had commented on how bad the blood color looked in the '78 movie and how today blood looks more realistic in films. George them talked about how he believed the "not so real looking blood" in DotD actually helped the movie in certain countries that probably would've banned it because the blood seemed somewhat "cartoony".

For some reason a character being killed while squirting green something isn't as bad as a character being killed while squirting red blood.

I think they also take into consideration what types of weapons you are using. Using a fictional weapon, I think they are less likely to require an 'M' rating.

Yeah, I knew that. It was a joke (sorta). My point was that Halo is rated M while MoH and Goldeneye are T, even though they're more realistic, I think. The uprising against video games after Columbine wasn't that the kids got to see badly pixilated zombie blood, it was that they had (allegedly) learned fire and cover techniques from a video game. Maybe I'm making too big a deal out of it, but to me the "inappropriate" part of a FPS (for children at least) is the virtual experience of hunting down and killing in first person, not the blood.

Does that make sense?

I played a FPS where everybody wielded Nerf weapons. No blood or deaths, it wasn't rated "M."

Pretty cool game actually. It was based on the UT engine.

Interesting enough, one could argue that a FPS without blood should be rated M, while the FPS with blood should be rated T.

For a child what is more "real" then seeing blood. When a child scrapes their knee and sees blood the association of blood and pain becomes very real.

As a result a game without blood teaches children there are no consequences for capping a Imp in the ass. Where as if there was blood a child could learn that, yes, getting shot in the pie hole does inflict pain.

The whole system is backwards.

I wouldn't be surprised if the whole rating system could be manipulated in favor of a particular game's marketing strategy. Finding a way to get an otherwise T rated game an M rating to make it more desirable to the 12-16 year old male market is not a bad way to increase sales for a particular type of game in today's mangled video game "industry."

That Dead or Alive Volleyball was M rated shows yet another example of how horrifically skewered this country's disgusting perspective of what is acceptable or not to our younger generation is. Killing humans is okay, but playing volleyball and giving gifts to others is BAD.

(o)(o) = 'M'

Yes.

I dont think it matters. I think Im being generous in saying that maybe 10% of parents look at ratings. They're gonna buy their brats GTA or halo, no matter the ratings.

What about paintball FPS?

The ratings system is incredibly flawed.

An example being, Tom and Jerry being rated teen. All because a mouse hits a cat with a hammer.

So according to the ESRB, both Medal of Honor and Tom and Jerry are suitable for the same age group.

I used to manage a Gamestop and can tell you that alot of parents look at the ratings and want to know what's in the games they buy.

I remember asking a parent about Harry Potter and being told "We don't allow magic in our house." While this chick was a looney, she still cared about what her kid played.

On the other hand, I've had parents come in to buy their kids GTA. I explain to the what's in the game and they tell me they don't care abd buy it for a 10 year old.

From my experience, I'd say at least 50% of parents pay attention to the ratings, 25% don't know about them, and the other 25% don't care what it's rated.

I think the big difference is that FPS's, by their very nature, put you in first-person control of the violence depicted in the game.