Wrong Age Ratings on Video Games

  This will be my first post, and I hope it turns out okay.
  One main problem I have in my life, besides all of the other important problems, would be video games and their age ratings. I'm still at the age in life where your parents won't allow you to have a game that has too much 'adult content', and i completely respect that. I don't think they'd approve of my ten-year-old brother trying out Mortal Kombat Fatalities at school. I can also respect the need for video games with adult level age ratings. Everybody's gotta play video games, right? Imagine how mad  people would be if the excitement in a game never exceeded Mario Kart or Fruit Ninja. You need to have games for everybody, and that's what the great men and women of the video game industry are trying to accomplish. If you want to play video games, you need a video game that you can and will play.
  So why on earth do they let the wrong people give out the age ratings?!
  Okay, I'm exaggerating, they're not the wrong people. They are actually fair with their age ratings. But someone unlike me, someone who can play any game he/she wants, would never notice that some age ratings are just...wow.
  My main focus will be the companies ESRB and PEGI. When it comes to the age rating of a game, you look to the back of the case, and there you'll find the fat stamps of those either one of those two (depending on where you live) displaying how freakin' old you should be to be allowed to play this game. Maybe they are trying to protect our young generation and shield them from adult content. Or maybe they're just trying to make you throw the game at the wall of the store as hard as you can when you realize you're SIXTEEN and ya just have to be SEVENTEEN to buy it. Who knows?
  Let's start with ESRB, since they deserve that much. I owe it to them. I knew them before I knew PEGI.   
  One beautiful morning nine-year-old me skips into Game Stop praying that Lego Batman will be 'age appropriate'. Heart thumping and hands sweating, I slowly pick up the game, smile wide at Batman and Robin on the cover, and flip it over.
  Guess what?
  It's rated Everyone...TEN AND UP!!!!
  What the butt does that even mean?!?! Does that signify that everyone can play the game...but you must be ten years or older? Why?
  Now, the specification in the rating might be for an important reason. What have we here on a Lego game? Cartoon Violence (Cartoon Violence?). Okay, cool. You have to be 10 to see Batman punch somebody. Understandable.

  How do you get that wrong? Is there a social or biological problem with a nine-year-old punching bad guys...made of plastic? This is a child's game. It was meant for children to play. Any person sick enough to deprive a nine-year-old (with strict parents) the RIGHT to enjoy Lego Batman: The Video Game just because he's not TEN should not be allowed to call himself/herself human. That is very evil. What, are you trying to make preteens world-wide cry?

Guess who the nine-year-old is?

  

  Thanks, ESRB. You did a fantastic job. I almost don't want to mention the obvious fact that everyone knows about game rating companies:

  Did any of you play the game? Let me repeat that for you: Did any of you, the people who are meant to give people information about the game, play the game?

  Huh?!

  And are there any levels of 'violence'? When ESRB puts 'violence' in the category of a game's features, they do specify it, right? Okay, my guess is 'Cartoon Violence' means nothing major: There's no blood, there's no bone cracking or jaw breaking. Heck, a normal punch will make funny sounds instead of the usual thump. A nine-year-old can be exposed to this, I'm sure. Even an eight or a seven year old. Nobody shuts off a TV set when they find their seven year old son/daughter watching Tom & Jerry beat the crap out of each other. My point here is, if you're gonna give a game a specific age rating in which everyone above that age rating can play, give a reason that makes sense. Here's an example: A seven-year-old might have trouble understanding certain concepts in the game, like puzzle solving or the game story in general. How about putting 'Mediocre Puzzle Solving' on the back of the game instead? There, your child might not have fun playing it because he/she won't be able to solve the not-hard-for-a-ten-year-old puzzles. Fair enough?

  There are not only downsides to these mistakes in age ratings. Let's head over to PEGI and see how they rate games. PEGI rates games much like ESRB: a system of symbols or words that illustrate what the game will contain and the overall age appropriateness in terms of that content. Now, Batman: Arkham City was (still is) a huge hit, and ESRB got it right: Some drug and alcohol reference, mild language, suggestive themes, and our good ol' pal violence. That about sums it up (they forgot o add 'awesome'. I loved this game!) Okay, cool, so how about the other 'respected' age-rating company? What did PEGI 'peg' on the back of Batman: Arkham City? 

  Violence.

  

  What?! Violence ONLY?! PEGI has a LOT of symbols that show content. They got stuff like 'fear', 'drugs', 'gambling', 'language'. So imagine my surprise when I compare the game's content, after finishing it of course, to what our friends PEGI said about the content. Know what I found? A lot of stuff freakin' PEGI didn't mention besides violence! How can you say there's no language in the game? Even if you didn't play (Which we know you didn't), the game takes place in a freakin' PRISON! Think for a minute.

  Anyway, overall, here's what I think would be an amazing idea. You know those little events where you choose someone to test a game? Let THAT guy rate it. 'Cause guess what, PEGI and ESRB? He played it.

  Until next we meet.