I was just looking at the UK rating board site, and it makes me almost hilarious curious who comes up with this junk and how. For example, where you look at the Wii Virtual Console:
1. Mega Man 1-7 get a 7 and above age rating.
2. Donkey Kong Country 2 and 3 get a 3 and above/E rating
3. The Legend of Zelda 1 and 2 get a 3 and above/E rating
But this makes no sense. The former only got the ratings because of supposed 'fantasy violence'. Problem is, how is using a sci fi blaster and sub weapons more of an issue than literally hacking apart your enemies with a sword? None of the games should have got anything above an E, unless we've got some really pedantic and screwed up moral guardians around somewhere.
Really though, in all honestly, I don't think any game of the NES era and earlier, unless actually trying to be 'adult' (although even those failed miserably at trying to look 'edgy'), should probably even get above a minimum age rating of about 3, at least in this day and age.
Some of the 'reasons' for ratings are outright ridiculous, like this one:
I doubt anyone offended by this could watch or play anything in existance. You could probably label every game ever made as this in some way, since all the characters are technically fantasy characters and all the violence is technically unrealistic.
Such as every game with human antagonists prior to the generation before last. I find it interesting how they emphasise the 'human' bit... so apparently, if you replace everyone with robots or animals it's all fine then? Oh wait, a famous NES game did that in Germany.
So?
Anyone else think video game ratings should probably be either massively reworked or just scrapped entirely?
1. Mega Man 1-7 get a 7 and above age rating.
2. Donkey Kong Country 2 and 3 get a 3 and above/E rating
3. The Legend of Zelda 1 and 2 get a 3 and above/E rating
But this makes no sense. The former only got the ratings because of supposed 'fantasy violence'. Problem is, how is using a sci fi blaster and sub weapons more of an issue than literally hacking apart your enemies with a sword? None of the games should have got anything above an E, unless we've got some really pedantic and screwed up moral guardians around somewhere.
Really though, in all honestly, I don't think any game of the NES era and earlier, unless actually trying to be 'adult' (although even those failed miserably at trying to look 'edgy'), should probably even get above a minimum age rating of about 3, at least in this day and age.
Some of the 'reasons' for ratings are outright ridiculous, like this one:
I doubt anyone offended by this could watch or play anything in existance. You could probably label every game ever made as this in some way, since all the characters are technically fantasy characters and all the violence is technically unrealistic.
Such as every game with human antagonists prior to the generation before last. I find it interesting how they emphasise the 'human' bit... so apparently, if you replace everyone with robots or animals it's all fine then? Oh wait, a famous NES game did that in Germany.
So?
Anyone else think video game ratings should probably be either massively reworked or just scrapped entirely?
