Dumbest thing you'll see today (new game rating.)

[Jordan]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

Filling the burning demand for games that are OK for 10, 11 and 12 year
olds, not intense enough for a "Teen" rating, but too intense for
0-9'ers...

Who the hell asked for this?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&ncid=738&e=1&u=/nm/20050302/tc_nm/media_videogames_ratings_dc

Video Game Ratings System Adds New Category

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The video game ratings system will add a new
category to protect children under 10 from seeing certain kinds of
violence, the board that administers the system said on Wednesday.

The Entertainment Software Rating Board said "E10+" would mark games
that might contain "moderate amounts of cartoon, fantasy or mild
violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes."

The E10+ rating will reside on the scale between "E," meaning a game is
appropriate for all ages, and "T," meaning a game for teenagers. The
ratings system also includes "M" ratings for those over 17 and the
rarely-used "AO" for adult audiences only.

The ESRB said it expected most top sports, racing and adventure games
would continue to take an E rating, while racing games with graphic
crashes and fighting games with superheroes would likely take an E10+.

The ESRB rates virtually every game released in the United States. Its
system has been praised by the federal government as one of the most
effective in the media industry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

Jordan wrote:

> Filling the burning demand for games that are OK for 10, 11 and 12
> year olds, not intense enough for a "Teen" rating, but too intense for
> 0-9'ers...
>
> Who the hell asked for this?

Well put. Even movie ratings don't get this specific. We need fewer new
ratings and more games that fall under the AO classification. Way, way more.

-Z-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

I remeber the good days when there were no ratings and they didn't ask
questions if you tried to rent mortal kombat or any other game lol. I
think there are enough levels to the rating scale without adding
another. Most parents do not even look at these ratings you always see
10 year olds with GTA or Halo or whatever so I don't see the point in
adding another rating.

 

[Dante]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

WTF?

Stupid obsessive Parents! It's becouse of all the retards like my
family...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

In article <TuWdne9ZHqvL7rvfRVn-hg@giganews.com>,
"Zackman" <zackman@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote:

> Jordan wrote:
>
> > Filling the burning demand for games that are OK for 10, 11 and 12
> > year olds, not intense enough for a "Teen" rating, but too intense for
> > 0-9'ers...
> >
> > Who the hell asked for this?
>
> Well put. Even movie ratings don't get this specific. We need fewer new
> ratings and more games that fall under the AO classification. Way, way more.

G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17

E, T, M, AO

I'm not counting the Early Childhood rating here, since it seems, in
practice, to be an "E" but with the suggestion the game is easy enough
for 3-year-olds.

The E10 rating fits right in about where PG-13 does in movies, and
according to the stories I've read, will mainly be used to downgrade
games from a "T" to "E10+".

I don't have any problem with this. More information is generally
better, and I'm over 17 (by a considerable amount), so I get to buy
whatever video game I want. My four current favourite games are rated E,
E, T, and, well, I sure hope Bushido Blade is rated M, otherwise, that's
just wrong.

From Businessweek:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D88J31V00.htm?campaign_id=ap
n_home_down

"We found we were putting games we thought were preteen in the teen
category," said Patricia Vance, president of the board. "And with the
levels of sophistication in game play and graphics now, we felt there
was enough nuance in the range of games to warrant a new category
between 'E' and 'T.'"

The "E10+" rating means the video game may be suitable for children 10
and older. The title might contain moderate amounts of cartoon, fantasy
or mild violence; mild profanity or minimally suggestive themes.

Likely candidates might be racing games with more extreme car crashes or
games with super heroes or cartoon characters -- cute as they may be --
involved in some fighting, Vance said.

Though existing games won't be reclassified, ones that might have
qualified as "E10+" include "Super Smash Bros. Melee," "Shrek," "Ratchet
and Clank," and "Jak II," she said.

--
Ryan Cousineau, rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

i don't really see what the big deal is. i mean, who here is really
affected by these ratings, anyhow? will this new rating dramatically
change the games you play? personally, i'm happy that someone out there
is putting a positive spin on video games for a change, saying "hey,
there's a lot of cool stuff out there for all ages... we're just trying
to find a way to make everyone happy when they play."

i'd much prefer this kind of headline over "Man Kills Friends Over XBox
Dispute" which happened not too long ago. i say paste on any rating you
want... it ain't going to affect me and it ain't going to hurt the
industry, that's for sure.

any debate is certainly welcomed! ;o)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

Beck wrote:
> "Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1109812533.517446.295280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Filling the burning demand for games that are OK for 10, 11 and 12
year
> > olds, not intense enough for a "Teen" rating, but too intense for
> > 0-9'ers...
> >
> > Who the hell asked for this?
> >
> >
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&ncid=738&e=1&u=/nm/20050302/tc_nm/media_videogames_ratings_dc
> >
>
> Its a good thing. The more information they put on the games, the
more onus
> is put on the parents when they try and claim *vidoegames killed my
son*.
> Its one step further to protecting the industry who are often
unnecessarily
> blamed for videogame violence. if the information is there, then the

> parents have less chance of blaming the industry.

And blaming the industry is just what some lawmakers want to do.
http://cube.ign.com/articles/592/592866p1.html?fromint=1

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

<aragorn200237@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109820624.256498.86370@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I remeber the good days when there were no
>ratings and they didn't ask
> questions if you tried to rent mortal kombat or
> any other game lol. I
> think there are enough levels to the rating
> scale without adding
> another. Most parents do not even look at these
> ratings you always see
> 10 year olds with GTA or Halo or whatever so I
> don't see the point in
> adding another rating.

For this to be a valid rant you really should have
mentioned how disconnected these ratings are from
reality. Take H2 or Fable as examples...WHAT makes
them M rated? I've seen worse B&G on the evening
news and as for the language...the playgrounds
where I grew up and my kids play is WORSE than
anything I've heard on a game so far.


--
Keith Schiffner
Assistant to the Assistant Undersecretary of the
Ministry of Silly Walks.
"terrorist organization" is a redundancy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

"Robert P Holley" <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote in
message
news:1109856128.180996.128430@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Beck wrote:
>> "Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:1109812533.517446.295280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > Filling the burning demand for games that are
>> > OK for 10, 11 and 12
> year
>> > olds, not intense enough for a "Teen" rating,
>> > but too intense for
>> > 0-9'ers...
>> >
>> > Who the hell asked for this?
>> >
>> >
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&ncid=738&e=1&u=/nm/20050302/tc_nm/media_videogames_ratings_dc
>> >
>>
>> Its a good thing. The more information they
>> put on the games, the
> more onus
>> is put on the parents when they try and claim
>> *vidoegames killed my
> son*.
>> Its one step further to protecting the industry
>> who are often
> unnecessarily
>> blamed for videogame violence. if the
>> information is there, then the
>
>> parents have less chance of blaming the
>> industry.
>
> And blaming the industry is just what some
> lawmakers want to do.
> http://cube.ign.com/articles/592/592866p1.html?fromint=1

Hey, now stop picking on them! I mean isn't it
their JOB to protect people from themselves? Isn't
it their job to think for us? Aren't they doing
this and more to protect us from each other and
ourselves?

Isn't it the lawmakers jobs to make sure that
individuals NEVER have to take reasonability for
their own actions or words...

This message was NOT approved by homeland security
and the crim^H^H^H^ perpetrator will be hung after
a short show trial....

--
Keith Schiffner
History does not record anywhere at any time a
religion that has any rational basis. Religion is
a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up
to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff,
most people do have a religion and spend time and
money on it and seem to derive considerable
pleasure from fiddling with it.
Robert Heinlein

 

[Thoth]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

<aragorn200237@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109820624.256498.86370@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>SNIP>
> so I don't see the point in
> adding another rating.

Congress gets to tell the sheeple that they doing something about violence
in videogames.

 

[Thoth]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

"Robert P Holley" <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote in message
news:1109856128.180996.128430@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> And blaming the industry is just what some lawmakers want to do.
> http://cube.ign.com/articles/592/592866p1.html?fromint=1

The co-sponsors of this bill should move someplace that would appreciate
their book-burning mentality. Saudi Arabia comes to mind.

Honestly, the language is so vague that people won't clearly know what
conduct is proscribed until after they are found liable.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

On 2 Mar 2005 17:15:33 -0800, "Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Filling the burning demand for games that are OK for 10, 11 and 12 year
>olds, not intense enough for a "Teen" rating, but too intense for
>0-9'ers...
>
>Who the hell asked for this?
>
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&ncid=738&e=1&u=/nm/20050302/tc_nm/media_videogames_ratings_dc
>

As a parent of a 10 year old, I think this new category is
appropriate. In my opinion, there is a big distinction is what is
appropriate for a 8 year old, a 10 year old and a 13 year old.

Although I never use the video game industry or the film industry's
ratings as my only guideline, I do use them as piece of the puzzle.
There are plenty of PG-13 movies I let my daughter watch but there are
also plenty there is not a chance in hell I'd want her to see.

Its all about providing as much information as possible to ASSIST
parents in making decisions,. Just because some parents choose to
ignore the information or make stupid decisions for their children
doesn't mean the system isn't worthwhile.

Mark
Atlanta GA

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

Keith Schiffner wrote:
> <aragorn200237@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1109820624.256498.86370@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I remeber the good days when there were no
>>ratings and they didn't ask
>>questions if you tried to rent mortal kombat or
>>any other game lol. I
>>think there are enough levels to the rating
>>scale without adding
>>another. Most parents do not even look at these
>>ratings you always see
>>10 year olds with GTA or Halo or whatever so I
>>don't see the point in
>>adding another rating.
>
>
> For this to be a valid rant you really should have
> mentioned how disconnected these ratings are from
> reality. Take H2 or Fable as examples...WHAT makes
> them M rated? I've seen worse B&G on the evening
> news and as for the language...the playgrounds
> where I grew up and my kids play is WORSE than
> anything I've heard on a game so far.

You've got a good point about the language on the game itself, but how
about the online players that use the bad language? I noticed in a
Bungie.net Q&A that one of the questions was something like "shouldn't
Bungie be responsible for the foul language my 11 year old has been
exposed to when playing halo2 online?" Bungie's response was "It is an
'M' rated game." Makes sense the game was given an M rating, just to
cover their asses...I mean it's not like it made one bit of difference
as far as sales go

 

[beck]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

"Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1109812533.517446.295280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Filling the burning demand for games that are OK for 10, 11 and 12 year
> olds, not intense enough for a "Teen" rating, but too intense for
> 0-9'ers...
>
> Who the hell asked for this?
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&ncid=738&e=1&u=/nm/20050302/tc_nm/media_videogames_ratings_dc
>

Its a good thing. The more information they put on the games, the more onus
is put on the parents when they try and claim *vidoegames killed my son*.
Its one step further to protecting the industry who are often unnecessarily
blamed for videogame violence. if the information is there, then the
parents have less chance of blaming the industry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

funk_n_orbit wrote:

> I noticed in a
> Bungie.net Q&A that one of the questions was something like "shouldn't
> Bungie be responsible for the foul language my 11 year old has been
> exposed to when playing halo2 online?" Bungie's response was "It is
> an 'M' rated game."

These days pretty much every game that allows for communicaiton between
players online has an ESRB notice to the effect that the game's rating may
change when online. I can't remember the exact wording.

-Z-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony (More info?)

now you're being silly... you're *right*, but silly.


btw... which game is that one with the crossbow... just curious, is
all. ;o)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

Zackman wrote:
> funk_n_orbit wrote:
>
>
>>I noticed in a
>>Bungie.net Q&A that one of the questions was something like "shouldn't
>>Bungie be responsible for the foul language my 11 year old has been
>>exposed to when playing halo2 online?" Bungie's response was "It is
>>an 'M' rated game."
>
>
> These days pretty much every game that allows for communicaiton between
> players online has an ESRB notice to the effect that the game's rating may
> change when online. I can't remember the exact wording.


good point, I now recall that disclaimer being on the case(s)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

funk_n_orbit wrote:
> Zackman wrote:
>
>> funk_n_orbit wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I noticed in a
>>> Bungie.net Q&A that one of the questions was something like "shouldn't
>>> Bungie be responsible for the foul language my 11 year old has been
>>> exposed to when playing halo2 online?" Bungie's response was "It is
>>> an 'M' rated game."
>>
>>
>>
>> These days pretty much every game that allows for communicaiton
>> between players online has an ESRB notice to the effect that the
>> game's rating may change when online. I can't remember the exact wording.
>
>
>
> good point, I now recall that disclaimer being on the case(s)


ahh yes..it's closer to "Experience may change in online play," no?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

"Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1109812533.517446.295280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Filling the burning demand for games that are OK for 10, 11 and 12 year
> olds, not intense enough for a "Teen" rating, but too intense for
> 0-9'ers...
>
> Who the hell asked for this?

If you had kids, you would understand why it is a good idea.

Games such as SW: Battelefront, Ratchet & Clank, The Incredibles, Super
Smash Brothers Melee, Jak 3 and many others have been given a "T" rating
because they feature violence, even though the violence is
fantasy/cartoonish and no blood is involved. I've seen parents refuse to
let their kids purchase or play these games because they weren't yet 13.
The parents knew nothing about the game--they just relied on the rating as a
hard and fast restriction. Do you honestly think these games aren't
appropriate for a 10 or 12 year-old? I sure don't. I've let my 6 and 8
year-olds play every single one of them. They are restricted from M-rated
games, because I think that rating is appropriate, whereas I think the T
rating isn't valid in many cases.

I've argued for years that there ought to be a rating in between E and T,
just as there is a PG-13 rating in between PG and R. Indiana Jones & The
Temple of Doom (which sparked the PG-13 rating) is fairly graphic in its
violent content. I won't let my kids watch it, although I have let him
watch the first Harry Potter movie (PG) as well as the Star Wars trilogy
(PG).

My only complaint is the name: E-10. Why isn't T then considered E-13, or M
considered E-18? It should have just been given a letter designation, like
PT for pre-teen or J for juvenile or something. Or the ESRB should have
just put numbers on the whole lot of ratings to make them consistent-- <5
(EC), 6-10 (E), 10-13 (now E-10), 14-17 (T), and >18 (M).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

In alt.games.video.xbox Robert P Holley <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote:

> And blaming the industry is just what some lawmakers want to do.
> http://cube.ign.com/articles/592/592866p1.html?fromint=1

That's because the lawyers know there's money to be had by suing video
game companies for releasing "dangerous games" for mentally deficient kids
of idiotic parents.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

Doug Jacobs wrote:
> In alt.games.video.xbox Robert P Holley <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>And blaming the industry is just what some lawmakers want to do.
>>http://cube.ign.com/articles/592/592866p1.html?fromint=1
>
>
> That's because the lawyers know there's money to be had by suing video
> game companies for releasing "dangerous games" for mentally deficient kids
> of idiotic parents.

haha. The whole rating system for vid games isn't all bad, folks...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

In alt.games.video.xbox funk_n_orbit <mark.lyle@o-gmail.com> wrote:

> haha. The whole rating system for vid games isn't all bad, folks...

I have no problems with the rating system - I just wish parents would
*USE* it. After all, they're the ones who wanted the stupid thing in the
first place.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

In article <112s0n9ljov6dac@corp.supernews.com>,
Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:

> If the game has an online component, is it automatically "M"? Lots of
> people have complained about dealing with sewer-mouthed 10 year olds
> online, for instance...

My Street is an E-rated Online PS2 game. One way they make the game
kid-friendly is by gravely restricting the communication options (no
headset, menued chatting). For an insight into similar issues, I dug up
a developer's diary on the making of the Treasure Planet PC game, which
is for kids but has an online component:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/chrisone.php3

> Does the intended target of the violence change the rating? For instance,
> is Castle Wolfenstein - which has you shooting nazis - more or less
> violent than a game that has you shooting puppy dogs? If you're old
> enough, you might remember an arcade game called "Tapper" which had you
> serving beer, but was later renamed "Root Beer Tapper" in order to avoid
> the angry parents who thought that the game promoted drinking. I think
> they also changed some graphics as I seem to recall seeing 'Coors' in the
> original game, which was later replaced with a generic label for a
> non-existant company. But I also recall seeing a "Root Beer Tapper" that
> still had the Coors graphics in it too.

Ah, the eternal dilemma. Are Nazis more evil than puppies? But they seem
to rate the realism of the violence rather than the target. So realistic
violence gets you a higher rating than cartoony violence, or violence in
a fantasy setting, etc.

I mistakenly deleted it, but you had a question about the "E" rating of
SSX. I think it would be justified by the fact that it depicted a
sporting event, and that the shoving was a valid part of the sport, at
least in the SSX world (coming soon: Murderball! Rated E). The action
isn't really more violent than football.

--
Ryan Cousineau, rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:54:17 -0000, Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
> [SNIP]
>Video games are more vague. For instance, both GTA and Mario (to some
>extent) reward you for literally stomping on the heads of your foes and
>kicking them around for cash. Yet one game is M and the other is E. Does
>this mean GTA could get an E rating if you replaced all the little old
>ladies with Goombas? (actually, the idea of 'Grand Theft Mario' is
>pretty funny...makes me wonder if anyone's tried to re-skin GTA

No idea what exists for GTA skins, but someone did do a version of GTA
for the NES emulators. I believe the title was "Grand Theftendo", and was
strictly homebrew.

> [SNIP again...]
>
>Does the intended target of the violence change the rating? For instance,
>is Castle Wolfenstein - which has you shooting nazis - more or less
>violent than a game that has you shooting puppy dogs? If you're old
>enough, you might remember an arcade game called "Tapper" which had you
>serving beer, but was later renamed "Root Beer Tapper" in order to avoid
>the angry parents who thought that the game promoted drinking. I think
>they also changed some graphics as I seem to recall seeing 'Coors' in the
>original game, which was later replaced with a generic label for a
>non-existant company. But I also recall seeing a "Root Beer Tapper" that
>still had the Coors graphics in it too.

The original Tapper, at least in the machines which I saw, featured the
Budweiser logo. It also included a wooden "footrest" rail at the base of the
machine, similar to what some bars have at their base for those using the
barstools.

--
I've gone to look for myself. If I should get back before I return, keep me here!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,rec.games.video.sony,rec.games.video.nintendo,rec.games.video.sega (More info?)

In alt.games.video.xbox Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:

> My Street is an E-rated Online PS2 game. One way they make the game
> kid-friendly is by gravely restricting the communication options (no
> headset, menued chatting). For an insight into similar issues, I dug up
> a developer's diary on the making of the Treasure Planet PC game, which
> is for kids but has an online component:

> http://www.penny-arcade.com/chrisone.php3

Yeah, ToonTown, an MMORPG from Disney, did something similar. General
chat options are menu-based, with players able to use normal freeform chat
with others they've added to their Friends list.

> Ah, the eternal dilemma. Are Nazis more evil than puppies? But they seem
> to rate the realism of the violence rather than the target. So realistic
> violence gets you a higher rating than cartoony violence, or violence in
> a fantasy setting, etc.

> I mistakenly deleted it, but you had a question about the "E" rating of
> SSX. I think it would be justified by the fact that it depicted a
> sporting event, and that the shoving was a valid part of the sport, at
> least in the SSX world (coming soon: Murderball! Rated E). The action
> isn't really more violent than football.

There was an arcade football game where you could get your players to get
into actual brawls with the opposing team. If you mashed the buttons fast
enough, it was possible to even injure the opposing team's players or get
them ejected from the game. Obviously not a very sportsman-like game. I
would have to wonder if you came out with a console version, would it get
an E or a T rating due to the cartoonish violence.

As for SSX, one of my other concerns about it being "E" is that you could
argue it could encourage some weak-minded child to go out and try to pull
stupid tricks on his snowboard. After all, if we have reports of children
jumping off roofs trying to be Superman, why not kids trying to be Eddie
by trying a front flip off the top of the house with a board strapped to
their feet? Yeah, at least SSX gives you a little feedback when you don't
pull off the trick - your character screams, sometimes even "dies" - but
it's not like you get to see his limbs bending at odd angles after a fall,
or blood gushing from their head when they wipe out on a rock, etc.

I remember a long time ago, someone had asked about making Doom2 less
violent for his 4 year old. He apparentally loved the game, but dad
wanted to turn off the blood. Most folks were rather speechless after
reading that post. Then there was the kid who couldn't have been more
than 3 or 4 who was playing one of the Time Crisis gun games at Dave &
Busters. He was actually pretty good, though he held the gun
gangsta-style. His mother stood by and would stroke his hair and
whisper words of praise to him as he blew away bad guys left and right.
When he would eventually die, she'd stick her D&B card into the machine so
he could continue playing. Given how the kid was doing, it was clear he'd
played the game many times before, and had started memorizing where the
bad guys would pop out. That was a very disturbing to watch during
lunch...