Support NeoGAF

[toythatkills]

I would much rather have black and white ratings on my games then colored ones... But that's just me.

Age ratings aren't there to look good on boxes, they're there as a buyer's guide. Coloured age ratings are about a million times clearer than plain ones.

 

[antitrop]

Neat but this won't change the fact that mature games in NA will be sold to parents for their under age kids. The worst thing is that many parents have no clue about the game they buy until they see it.

I think it's pretty obvious what kind of shit you do in this game, from looking at the cover and title:

Yet, somehow... parents are always surprised. People don't run with their rifles pointed up in the air to go plant flowers.

 

[Struct09]

I rate the new designs AOK.

 

[MrSaturn99]

Dat pixelated particle effect.

Doesn't look very good at all, but there's still a twinge of nostalgia.

Dude, I remember that! I remember being confused when they changed it (think it was around when Donkey Kong 64 came out?)

 

[Baron von Loathsome]

Personally, I kind of find it kind of interesting and weird that certain games that totally catered to young kids (like Pokemon) are now rated E10+, but whatever.

Technically, the only Pokemon game rated E10+ is Rumble Blast. I understand your point, though

 

[WeaponKnight]

I like the brazilian icons:

L means Free for All Ages
ER means Especially Recommended, and is reserved for educational games.

Too bad that they usually come in a very big white box with the full classification written, as if seeing a big 16 in there wasn't enough to convince me that it is not recommended for people under 16.

 

[Blowdrum]

Eww, those are ugly.

I liked the old ones better.

 

[Secretarial Dog]

Can't wait for the German USK Logo redesign.

Hint: The get bigger everytime

 

[Septimus Prime]

Why even bother with AO? I've never seen a game with that rating, and first party won't even let you submit your game to them if it scores and AO.

 

[linko9]

Good to see that the E10+ has graduated from ™ to ®, now they're all uniform. And I have no idea what people are talking about with the typefaces, the text all looks identical from the old to the new to me, guess I need to upgrade my brain.

edit: unless you're talking about the EC symbol, which now looks more like the rest.

 

[FyreWulff]

Why even bother with AO? I've never seen a game with that rating, and first party won't even let you submit your game to them if it scores and AO.

It's there to make M look like it's not the "worst".

First party doesn't license AO because it's essentially dead at retail anyway. You're better off not bothering with getting ESRB rated.

 

[polyh3dron]

black text instead of white text and no more "CONTENT RATED BY"

So revolutionary.

Why even bother with AO? I've never seen a game with that rating, and first party won't even let you submit your game to them if it scores and AO.

Same reason MPAA has NC-17.

 

[cj_iwakura]

MA-13 for life.

 

[Vahtra]

They look kind of messy, I even prefer the colourful PEGI ratings.

 

[Eusis]

Some of these available in vector form here if anyone needs: http://www.esrb.org/about/news/downloads/ESRB_Generic_brochure_web_version.pdf

I don't like the Everyone E, too bold. Otherwise it's an ok change.

I hope those other ones are just for the back of the case, because FUCK cluttering up the front of a case with several social connectivity ones.

And I'm honestly not that fond of PEGI's color setup. It works in a way, but I feel it gets in the way of covers whereas you can more easily ignore ESRB (or Cero) unless they go insane due to being bilingual and online or whatever.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

rrrrrrrrrrr the weights of the typface are still inconsistent between logos rrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[OldAsUrSock]

ESRB still needs to fix their inconsistent rating. PEGi has better logos and is more consistent.

 

[Clownboat]

Logos aside, what's the difference in maturity between 17- and 18-year-olds? PEGI isn't doing much better, pretending 16-year-olds are kids but suddenly grown-ups two years later.

 

[Septimus Prime]

You're better off not bothering with getting ESRB rated.

I agree, but first party does not, so... =\

 

[jaydogg691]

USK. The best.

 

[PaulloDEC]

Apparently we're all going blind in Australia, hence these gargantuan monstrosities:

 

[rhizomatic]

Dude, I remember that! I remember being confused when they changed it (think it was around when Donkey Kong 64 came out?)

Pretty sure it was sometime in '98, because I distinctly remember being slightly confused when I got 1080 Snowboarding and saw it was rated E instead of K-A.

Now, they switched things up and made the letters themselves more bold the next year by making them black instead of white with that pixelly stuff making an outline, but E was introduced in 1998.

 

[antitrop]

Apparently we're all going blind in Australia, hence these gargantuan monstrosities:

Wow, that's offensive.

 

[trinest]

Apparently we're all going blind in Australia, hence these gargantuan monstrosities:

Dispite its size though it is still a clean sharp design.

 

[malfcn]

"Everyone" is registered instead of trademarked now.

 

[rrs]

Still the same old design, it's not the early 2000's anymore

 

[PaulloDEC]

Wow, that's offensive.

Yeah, you can image how thrilled we all were when they switched from the old to the new:

The old one looked like part of the cover. The new one looks like an ugly-ass sticker that you can never, ever peel off.

Dispite its size though it is still a clean sharp design.

It could be worse, but there's really no need for it to be so big. I mean, why the hell is there so much empty space around the text and the icon?

 

[linkent]

I really think these icon are useless to some parents..

Once i saw a kid with his dad in a game store..
It was in singapore, but the dad could have known the icon too..

The kid ask the seller whether he can play god of war ascention on his US ps3..

Not only the seller tell them that he can play it, the dad also happily going to buy it..

I immediately tell the
Child - you can play it, buy you cant use the code to play online. (Dont want to explain about changing region etc)

Dad - (as i am a dad tooo) he should have check te rating of the game, GoWA is the worst title that he want a 10yo to play..
Nudity, gore, beheading -_-

Lastly the seller, i threaten him that i will report to auhority if he sell it to the kid..

The worst thing is in addition to rating icon, there is also a sticker for 21yo only -_-

Edit: i agree that violent game will not lead people to go violent, as when i was young i played a lot of those..
It is all come to parenting who did not supervise their child..

 

[lowhighkang_LHK]

Don't like it. Pre order canceled.

 

[NIN90]

Some suits got payed mad bank to have a dozen meetings regarding this negligible change

 

[WeaponKnight]

Mild science fiction? Really?

 

[Sami+]

Mild science fiction? Really?

If you're not careful your son could become the next Star Wars kid, man. It's dangerous stuff.

 

[PaulloDEC]

If you're not careful your son could become the next Star Wars kid, man. It's dangerous stuff.

And the Australian ratings board wants to make sure everyone knows it, with labels that are so prominent that you know the rating before you even know what the product is.

 

[Mista Koo]

These are pretty hot.

 

[nib95]

I know these aren't for games, but the BBFC movie ratings still look good.

 

[Macapala]

Apparently we're all going blind in Australia, hence these gargantuan monstrosities:

It's because ignorant parents would end up buying The Exorcist for their 5 year old child because they didn't realise it had an R18+ rating.

 

[PaulloDEC]

It's because ignorant parents would end up buying The Exorcist for their 5 year old child because they didn't realise it had an R18+ rating.

Pretty much. I seem to recall at the time that part of their research had shown that the over-50s crowd didn't think the existing graphics were prominent enough. Shocker.

 

[toythatkills]

Mild science fiction? Really?

Mild science fiction violence.

 

[Eusis]

Mild science fiction violence.

It's still funny just how SPECIFIC that is though. It's not just violence, it's SCIENCE FICTION violence!

Which admittedly must mean laser guns in this instance.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

I know these aren't for games, but the BBFC movie ratings still look good.

I get that it's supposed to be PARENT ALERT or whatever, but I really dislike rating systems that ramp up from welcoming colors to harsh red. It makes it seem like OH SHIT SON THIS GAME/MOVIE IS STRAIGHT FUCKED UP like a badge of shame.

 

[GorillaJu]

Damn no need to go crazy with the changes. Don't suppose they could try to keep it similar, could they?

 

[Azure Dream]

This actually is an improvement. It would ugly up covers a bit more, but not that badly, and function over form. The color groupings make sense.

 

[billy beane]

The European rating logos for games and movies are ugly. Thank god the ESRB keeps them black and white.

 

[Acrylic7]

why cant we get Adults only games?
Is there even a line in between M and A? How is something like GTA not considered A?

 

[Princess Viola]

why cant we get Adults only games?
Is there even a line in between M and A? How is something like GTA not considered A?

Because who gives a shit about violence but show sexual actions and OH MY GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!

 

[rObit]

I guess they need B&W for maximum readability, but I wish they could be a little more subdued:

 

[xJavonta]

It sucks.

Can we get a little color and make them less sterile?

 

[TriGen]

I wouldn't have known these were different if I just saw the logos in a store. If they are better then I guess I'm happy.

 

[subwilde]

I'm just glad they kept "childhood" and wasn't replaced with "consumer".

Serious note, this makes sense but long overdue. Why not just re-design up to a modern standard?

 

[U-R]

Pretty much. I seem to recall at the time that part of their research had shown that the over-50s crowd didn't think the existing graphics were prominent enough. Shocker.

I wonder what is the statistic value of such researches, where the question has an obvious social bias (of course you want bigger kid protection labeling, don't you care for the children?). They should have simply measured the amount of parents who are unaware of the labels or willing to ignore them.