Creative works, including video games, are assigned ratings to protect minors. However, a recent online discussion sparked by a player questions the effectiveness of these ratings.  The player argues that the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB)'s 'M' rating (for Mature, 17+) is too restrictive, especially given the prevalence of violence in other media and the perceived resilience of today's youth.

It's not just video games that feature violence.  Many popular movies, TV shows, and anime often depict violent scenes, likely due to the genre's appeal. Some gamers believe that rating standards, specifically for video games, need to be updated to reflect this broader media landscape.

One player cited "Starfield" as an example, arguing that its violent content is comparable to or even less graphic than other M-rated games like "Fallout" and "The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim." This raises the question: are ESRB ratings based solely on the presence of blood and gore, rather than the context and overall impact of the violence?

Some argue that constant exposure to violent imagery in various media has desensitized audiences, leading to a higher tolerance for violent content in video games.  This suggests that perhaps stricter ratings are necessary to counteract this effect. However, others believe current ratings are sufficient, or even too strict, especially for a generation arguably more resilient to such content.