Considering PG-13 Movies are advertised on kids channels very frequently, and since most of the current kids networks target kids up to 14 years old, have you ever seen a commercial for a Teen rated game on a kids network? I remember Jak II had a commercial on Nickelodeon at one point, but aside from that, I don't remember any others.
Considering PG-13 Movies are advertised on kids channels very frequently, and since most of the current kids networks target kids up to 14 years old, have you ever seen a commercial for a Teen rated game on a kids network? I remember Jak II had a commercial on Nickelodeon at one point, but aside from that, I don't remember any others.
Rare for me, only Destiny on Nickolodeon
Do you like videogames? If so, you must know
It's dangerous to go Alone.
the_shpydar wrote:
As @ogo79 said, the SNS-RZ-USA is a prime giveaway that it's not a legit retail cart.
And yes, he is (usually) always right, and he is (almost) the sexiest gamer out there (not counting me) ;)
I rarely watch TV, so I can't really answer that question. What I can say though is that TV ratings and video game ratings are on different levels. So what might be considered for teens in a video game might be considered too much for a kids network, or the other way around. The way TV and games are rated are so controversial and nit picky that anyone in the business is not allowed to talk about how they rate it or pretty much anything.
Wi-Fi Game List:
Xenoblade Chronicles X
Splatoon
Super Smash Bros. Wii U & 3DS + All DLC
Mario Kart 8 + All DLC
Mario Golf: World Tour + All DLC
Mario Kart 7
Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon
Wii U & 3DS Game Wish List:...
3DS Friend Code: 3737-9553-9610 | Nintendo Network ID: Toadette75
I remember a Rachet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal commercial on Nick or Cartoon Network..
Also, there's a problem with the PG-13 movie rating. There seems to be two different types of PG-13. The one that's for the family, (Harry Potter, Marvel movies, The Hunger Games, Pirates of the Caribbean) then you have the ones that are strictly for people 13+ (Inception, Meet the Fockers, Austin Powers).
They should have a seperate the family PG-13 movies from the 13+ PG-13 movies. Most 'PG' films like the ones from Disney and DreamWorks can just be rated G, and have the family PG-13 movies be rated PG.
The ESRB use to have this problem, so they created E10+ to fix it, now Rachet & Clank is E10+ instead of T.
With the low amount TV that I have watched, I still can confirm that they do show ads for T-rated and even M-rated games on kids TV.
I have seen plenty of ads for games like Brawl, SFIV, Titanfall and even Call of Duty on rare occasions.
It really depends on what the commercials actually show.
@Dipper723 Pretty much any media fits squarely into E, T, and M though (or G, PG, R for movies). Racket & Clank should just be E, not E10, not T. There's nothing in it that would be inappropriate for children. It's about as violent and obscene as a game of Cops & Robbers.
The problem with the PG-13 rating is that it's redundant. It's the exact same rating as PG, but used for marketing purposes. Teenagers who don't want to go see movies with their parents look at the PG-13 rating and think they're going to see a more grown-up film. Harry Potter, Marvel movies (and DC movies, let's not kid ourselves), The Hunger Games, and Pirates of the Caribbean could all be PG and nothing would change except for ticket sales.
I remember a Rachet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal commercial on Nick or Cartoon Network..
Also, there's a problem with the PG-13 movie rating. There seems to be two different types of PG-13. The one that's for the family, (Harry Potter, Marvel movies, The Hunger Games, Pirates of the Caribbean) then you have the ones that are strictly for people 13+ (Inception, Meet the Fockers, Austin Powers).
They should have a seperate the family PG-13 movies from the 13+ PG-13 movies. Most 'PG' films like the ones from Disney and DreamWorks can just be rated G, and have the family PG-13 movies be rated PG.
The ESRB use to have this problem, so they created E10+ to fix it, now Rachet & Clank is E10+ instead of T.
The Teen rating suffers the same problem IMO. There are T rated games aimed at tweens (Smash Bros., Tales, most Shonen jump games) then there are ones for older teens 15+ like Final Fantasy, Infamous, Unchated, Soul Calibur. What the ESRB needs to do is bump the T rating down a year (so 12+ instead of 13+) and introduce a T15+ rating of sorts. There are plenty of E10+ games that could easily be rated E like Pikmin 3, Sonic Lost World, Nintendo Land, a lot of licensed kids games, and Mario & Luigi: Dream Team. Also another reason PG-13 movies are advertised on kids networks a lot (specifically Marvel and action movies) at least IMO, is because the target audience for most kids networks go up to 14 years old.
@Dipper723 Pretty much any media fits squarely into E, T, and M though (or G, PG, R for movies). Racket & Clank should just be E, not E10, not T. There's nothing in it that would be inappropriate for children. It's about as violent and obscene as a game of Cops & Robbers.
The problem with the PG-13 rating is that it's redundant. It's the exact same rating as PG, but used for marketing purposes. Teenagers who don't want to go see movies with their parents look at the PG-13 rating and think they're going to see a more grown-up film. Harry Potter, Marvel movies (and DC movies, let's not kid ourselves), The Hunger Games, and Pirates of the Caribbean could all be PG and nothing would change except for ticket sales.
Its the same thing with most PG movies these days, they could all be G rated, but soccer moms and stupid parents limit them to a higher rating. And applying it to games, many E10+ games can easily be rated E, many T games can easily be E10+, and many M games can be T.
@Dipper723 Pretty much any media fits squarely into E, T, and M though (or G, PG, R for movies). Racket & Clank should just be E, not E10, not T. There's nothing in it that would be inappropriate for children. It's about as violent and obscene as a game of Cops & Robbers.
The problem with the PG-13 rating is that it's redundant. It's the exact same rating as PG, but used for marketing purposes. Teenagers who don't want to go see movies with their parents look at the PG-13 rating and think they're going to see a more grown-up film. Harry Potter, Marvel movies (and DC movies, let's not kid ourselves), The Hunger Games, and Pirates of the Caribbean could all be PG and nothing would change except for ticket sales.
Umm, no. A number of those movies couldn't be rated PG. Not even going by some of the violence, the language in some of those movies would not be PG appropriate. Some of them have a few to a lot of S words, and some even have the middle finger. Not to mention there are a few other things too. And one note on violence for a strong case, how would The Dark Knight be rated PG?
Its the same thing with most PG movies these days, they could all be G rated, but soccer moms and stupid parents limit them to a higher rating.
Sometimes the MPAA is backwards with it. "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" has a song about Frollo saying his sexual desires for Esmeralda and also talks about her wanting to burn in hell, and that movie is rated 'G'. The movie is STILL rated G to this day.
Meanwhile there's Frozen, which has absolutely nothing remotely too heavy for children, and it's rated PG.
Umm, no. A number of those movies couldn't be rated PG. Not even going by some of the violence, the language in some of those movies would not be PG appropriate. Some of them have a few to a lot of S words, and some even have the middle finger. Not to mention there are a few other things too. And one note on violence for a strong case, how would The Dark Knight be rated PG?
You mention absolutely nothing inappropriate for 12 year olds.
And The Dark Knight is rated 12/13+ in most regions. It's PG in Canada.
I am pretty sure when those Transformer games (rated T) were coming out they advertised it along with Transformers Prime. So I bet it happens very frequently
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan
Umm, no. A number of those movies couldn't be rated PG. Not even going by some of the violence, the language in some of those movies would not be PG appropriate. Some of them have a few to a lot of S words, and some even have the middle finger. Not to mention there are a few other things too. And one note on violence for a strong case, how would The Dark Knight be rated PG?
You mention absolutely nothing inappropriate for 12 year olds.
And The Dark Knight is rated 12/13+ in most regions. It's PG in Canada.
You mean like with the MPAA 13+. And I guess for some of those things, we just disagree about what age for some stuff is okay with language and whatnot.
You obviously just have different standards than whoever is in charge of the MPAA ratings. It is quite apparent that there's a difference in the two ratings when you compare the content that is allowed in PG-13 movies to content allowed in PG movies. Strong language, violence/blood/gore, and intense sexual themes are all accepted and prevalent in PG-13 films, whereas you will rarely find such things in PG movies. Of course there is and always will be overlap between the two ratings--I'm sure the cause of such an overlap is due to the MPAA raters(?) being given some leeway, and not all having the same standards.
It seems very obvious to me that the PG-13 rating is not simply for increasing audience.
Obviously.
I think you're misunderstanding my intent though. I know there is a divide in what sort of content gets through a PG and a PG-13 rating. What I'm saying is that divide is completely arbitrary and both ratings essentially mean the same thing - parents should be cautioned that the movie contains some objectionable content for younger viewers. To imply that there is such a leap in maturity from 12 to 13 years that significantly increased levels of violence, profanity, and sexuality is suddenly appropriate doesn't make sense to me.
The rating was created in the 80s to appease parents who complained about the PG ratings of movies like Gremlins and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Only, the new rating really wasn't any different at all when you think about it. If it's inappropriate for a 12 year old, it's probably still inappropriate at 13. But now the MPAA had this magical dividing line between fart jokes (Shrek) and a guy being falling into a plane propeller and turning into red soup on screen (Captain America: The First Avenger), in which one year of development is sufficient to cross that divide. I could understand if it was a PG-15 rating, like what the UK has, but a divide at 12/13 seems nonsensical.
Appropriate for 12 year olds:
Appropriate for 13 year olds:
Is there really such a gap in that one year? I'm not saying that there's no difference between what movies get rated PG and what movies get rated PG-13. What I'm saying is that the PG-13 rating is redundant and unnecessary. Either soup guy up there is inappropriate for 12 and 13 year olds or inappropriate for neither.
And much of what gets a PG rating really doesn't require more than a G rating either. It's not like 7 year olds are going to the theater by themselves anyway, so why bother rating Shrek and Frozen PG? They're family movies. Parents are going to take their kids. Just rate it G. It's a G movie.
And if the soup guy really is inappropriate for 12 year olds, then maybe the PG rating is the one that's redundant. Axe it, and bump all the 'hard' PG movies like Star Wars up to a 13+ sticker, and drop all the 'soft' PG movies like Shrek and Frozen down to G. Unless the MPAA is made up of a board of developmental psychologists, I really don't see the use in them sitting around trying to decide what exact age a child should be to watch a movie. Kids, teens, and adults, three stages of development that anyone can understand, and call it a day.
Sorry for the long-winded off-topic tangent here, btw.
I don't think that every PG-13 movie is okay for 13 year olds, but I think it serves as a midway between PG and R. I think that even if the name is weird, it still serves a purpose. I also think that the real difference is between the parents cautioned and parents strongly cautioned. And also, nothing says PG=12. You could make the same argument with the R rating with 16 year olds and 17 year olds.
PG-13 does not mean that 13 year olds should be allowed to view the material, it means that the movie is worse than your typical PG movie, but not as bad as your typical R movie. It's better to think of the PG-13 rating as "PG+" or something similar.
Actually that would be MA which is close to R. MA is kinda like the rated M for mature in video games for TV (17+) while R is adult only 18+
PG-13/14 is more along the lines of maturity.. for example, family guy, alot of parents or children would find some of the content offensive or serious. PG-13 basicly says "At this age you should know better" in other words you should know not to take anything controversal you see or hear on the show serious or imitate it.
In the shrek gif, well, it's PG-12 because I'm sure any child would know better than to strip in a public pool and take a dump or anything.
In Captain america, I'm sure you'd know better than to push your friend into a giant fan, etc. It's not THAT gorey because the body pretty much disappears and just shows blood which I'm sure every child knows exsist. Not like you can see limbs flying around like they would in a more realistic scenario.
I've seen halo 4 commercials on nick (or cartoon network) I believe when it was coming out.. (or whatever commercial that was with the doritos/mountain dew bonus)
Forums
Topic: Have you ever seen a teen rated game advertised on a kids network?
Posts 1 to 20 of 23
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.