According to the ESRB, a game that is rated "E" is supposedly dubbed "appropriate for children ages 6 and up." I've always pondered this notion, as many of the games I play don this rating. However, as I go through some of them, I sometimes wonder how such a young child can be expected to play them competently. Even games that are rated "E10+" have struck me as kind of odd, for the very same reason.
Personally, I believe that games should be rated not only based on content, but also based on difficulty. For instance, next to the "E" on the back of a box, a list of criteria could include something like this:
This way, the ESRB can actually
inform parents about the true nature of a game (for once). Truth be told, game ratings are incredibly misleading, because "questionable content" isn't the only thing to watch out for when buying a new title for your 1st grader.
As it turns out, some games that are rated "E" are actually intended to appeal to older audiences. However, these games don't contain anything too inappropriate, so they pass by with an "E" or "E10+" rating (and yes, I'm pretty much grouping those together). Once this happens, the trap is set, and parents buy these games for their elementary school kids, not knowing that said games were going to be punching their children in the guts with their challenges.
