CERO is Japan's videogame rating system. B and C are two levels of said system, with B being 12+ and C being 15+. Up to this point, the Gyakuten series has had all but GS4 fall under the B rating, but this time GS5 got a C. Incredibly, GS4 got an A rating (all ages)...

---

12+ and 15+ are the ages?

Actually justice for all also got an A rating. Which is strange because i feel like Justice for All and Apollo Justice are the two that are MORE inappropriate than the others.

But yeah this is the first time GS has gotten a C. Really C isn't that different from M, though (only 1 year difference)

---

as long as it oesnt affect AA:DD negatively then we shouldn't worry

Wired wrote an article about this
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2013/07/a ... destinies/

It sounds like part of it could be simply that they are getting more strict and part of it could be that there's a desire for M games on the 3DS.

Also, I want to say that I was under the impression that M had changed from being 17+ to 16+. I'm not quite sure why I thought that, I just thought for sure that they had changed that. But anyway, I am now aware of that, so yes, there should be something in between 13 and 17.

---

Oh right, my bad. I always forget about GS2 for some reason... And yeah, it's weird that GS2 is rated for all ages. I mean, if I saw Case 2 when I was 9 years old, I'd be traumatized.

---

Not to mention the innuendo was a lot more frequent.

On another note, I wonder if we'll get anymore info tomorrow about the game or if this is it.

It said a group of Capcom producers will be at Comic-Con, so maybe Eshiro will be there to answer questions? They haven't planned any new info reveals ever, but at e3 when questioned he revealed stuff like the possibility of a Physical release and Fulbright's name so maybe he'll give us some new info.

OR MAYBE WE'LL GET A RELEASE DATE!
Probably not, but oh well.

---

Whether the M rating is a problem or not, I really can't say much.
I started playing when I was 10.

---

Maybe they'll reveal more information about Case 2 and the release date. Oh, and releasing another trailer, of course, translated from Japanese.

Today afternoon they're supposed to update us with the latest news on the title, so I really hope the exact release date, the price, and the second full trailer (the one with the voice acting) will be featured there. Additionally I wish they would update the English verison of the official web site...

Oh wow, I am soo pumped for the game. I can't wait much longer, so please announce a September or early October release date.

Comic-Con might have been the place to do this (rather than e3) because of the tone of the show and the fact that they have a more traditional panel rather than the weird live streams like they did at e3.

---

Btw. one guy from NeoGAF asked Capcom about the USK rating (Germany) of AA5. He got the news it's going to be USK 12, but it's not officially rated yet. However the USK only rate games they have played. So it means they got at least some kind of alpha/beta build to play through the complete game. So yeah, the localization should already be finished, but it still doesn't automatically mean they will release it next month or something like this.

I still find it weird they actually gave DD a M rating

Nick's original voice was more high pitched when first recorded in 2001. Now he sounds older and more experienced in his years. I think the reason why Capcom chose Sam Riegel to voice voice him now, besides once being Phoenix in UMvC3, is probably because he kinda has the voice we could imagine 24 year old Nick having. Odoroki's voice actor sounds pretty close to the 2007 recordings, so if the guys at Comic Con today play the demo as Apollo, it's pretty much 50/50 if his English voice actor sounds decent or crap. As for Edgeworth, his Japanese voice sounds like the original but older, which is good. Though I don't think Capcom will reveal his voice actor until later since it seems that Edgeworth won't show until around case 4.

---

Oops; I just realized I said "I know Ben Judd isn't perfect" but I meant Sam Reigel.

I always thought Apollo had the most intense and best sound effects out of all of them, so hopefully the new voice lives up to it.
As for Edgeworth, I wonder if he'll actually be British or not. I like Edgeworth's Objection but the rest of his sounds sounded too high-pitched; I always imagined him sounding deeper more like Benedict Cumberbatch.

About 4 hours until the Capcom event; Hopefully we'll be hearing some news soon!

---

Sorry for being late to the party - only just noticed that DD would be M rated on Facebook.
Really surprised DD got an M rating - does that mean a 16+ rating for the UK?
The highest rating AA games have got in the UK is 12+ (or T in the US).
Maybe there'll be harsher language and more graphic violence (maybe due to the 3D) in DD?

---

I'm willing to bet that the content in Dual Destines will be about on par with Layton Brothers Mystery Room. That game was rated 12+ though. It really is stupid that the ESRB is rating this game M. Like I've mentioned before, every country besides the U.S. has an "in-between" rating between 12+/13+ and 17+/18+. We're the only country to NOT have this, so the game had to be rated M. Smart move, ESRB.


I'm not talking about the Twin Snakes. I'm talking about the very original MGS for PlayStation. I agree that TS deserves its M rating because of the amount of violence. What do you mean "valid rating?" The content in the game hasn't changed at all. It should have been rated T from the beginning. The ESRB stupidly said that MGS1 contained "Mature Sexual Themes." You've played the game just as I have and we both know that it has no such content. In fact, the Twin Snakes had the discriptor "Suggestive Themes." That just shows you how far off they were the first time around.
The same goes for MGS2. There really isn't that much violence in this game, at least from what I can remember.


What about Skyward Sword? That game was rated E10+ and it practically has the same gameplay as Twilight Princess. Just because the art style is different, should that really affect the rating? Is the sight of minimal blood that bad for people to handle? The blood in Twilight Princess isn't even that gratuitous. I never said that Brawl should be rated E. I think that it should be rated E10+ all the way. There's more violence in a Tom and Jerry cartoon for crying out loud.


The way they mention Strong Sexual Content makes it sound like it's happening throughout the game, almost like explicit pornography. This most certainly isn't the case, but anyone reading the rating could easily assume so.


I've already said this. It doesn't matter if a game is rated E or M. The parents have to be responsible enough to determine what's suitable for their child. A rating wouldn't mean shit if the parents don't even pay attention in the first place. If a young child is playing MGS or Halo, that's the parents' faults and not the game's.

And adding another rating WOULD change things. Why does EVERY OTHER COUNTRY have it then!? There's a HUGE gap between 13 year-olds and 17 year-olds. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy Halo Reach, just because there's no alternative rating?


I've already explained this, too. A lot of adults ARE very strict. There are many kids at my school who are my age, but their parents prohibit them from playing Mature rated games. The same goes for parents that don't pay attention either. Both types of parents exist, and they're both a problem. Just because you don't have to go through any of this, doesn't mean that it's not happening for a lot of kids.

That's great, I truly am happy that you're parents are so understanding. You were much luckier than most kids out there.

With me, my parents don't give a damn about the games that I play. All they care about is the rating, and that's it. No amount of persuasion is going to change that, and I have to deal with it by sneaking my games in without them knowing. I don't own a 3DS yet, but when I do; it's going to be the same. I'll play DD if it's the last thing I do, and I don't care what my parents think. And I don't watch that much TV or anything similar to Ace Attorney, either; so that argument won't work with them. It doesn't matter how huge of a fan I am or how "good" the messages are. I'm sorry, but you really don't understand what my life is like. I have my reasons for being angry at the ESRB, and they're the reasons why video games get so much shit from stupid politicians and adults who simply don't understand.

Last edited by TopHatProfessor1014 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Also just remembered the original PW:AA was rated 7+ over here, but T in the US. Strange.

---

I played PW:AA myself and I have to say, the first game was probably the tamest when it came to content.

---

Agreed! I felt Apollo's exclamations sounded like you were "hitting" the witnesses/prosecution the hardest. I liked how his original voice had such authority.

---

Actually, I thought the first game had more swearing and more apparent suggestive themes.



I'm curious to see how intense the violence gets in DD. It doesn't seem that bad so far.

I'm not saying that warrants an M, but it's a pretty messy way to die.

---

This is a series in which someone watches her sister burn to death in a car accident. It's always been grim.

What I meant by valid rating was that video games were grader stricter back then, especially games with gun violence because of things like Columbine happening around that time. At the time, the game was rated M and that was a valid rating for THAT TIME. If the game was released now it probably would have been rated T, because everyone is a little more lax now. Perhaps there should be a discussion about re-rating older games, because this is no doubt an issue for a lot of them. This happens in movies, too; movies that should have been rated PG-13 or PG were rated R because of cultural standards at the time (especially since PG-13 wasn't invented until the 80's). I would still personally consider MGS2 to be M rated, but I tend to me more sensitive to violence so yeah I think if it had been released today it might have gone either way.


I think the plot of SS was a little more classical-fairy-tale-tone kind of thing, and by extension had less frightening cutscenes. I would say SS is slightly more appropriate for children than Twilight Princess. And while YOU might not find minimal blood too much for people to handle, for many (including me at 14 or 15) any blood in the game could instantly ruin it. Everyone has their own level of sensitivity and the ratings need to ensure people who are sensitive about blood know about it.



I understand what you are saying, and I agree that people worry about sexual themes in games too often (especially when our society seems to be totally alright with gruesome, senseless violence in most games) but to some very conservative families a sex scene in a game IS the equivalent of pornography. If the ESRB didn't make something sound like it's worst possible interpretation, they would get sued off their asses (which has happened before).



I agree with that; I don't think its the game's fault at all. Parents are totally to blame. But my point was that the reasons why there needs to be a cautious ratings system is because parents usually aren't very responsible about this stuff. I know your situation is a problem with tons of kids, but there is no question that there are many more parents who just don't even bother to check the ratings. If a game getting an M rating can prevent a kid from playing a game that will disturb him, then I fully support it. And once again, that doesn't mean I blame the game. The game could be a work of art that the kid is simply TOO YOUNG to play and his parents don't spend the time to research and be smart.



You are correct, and I apologize because I made a mistake. I was under the impression that M-rated games were 16+, not 17+. As 16 was the same as PEGI 16 and roughly the same as CERO 15 I was confused as to why it was this big of a deal. Now I understand and can see why people are upset. The ratings system does need a rating in between T and M, and M probably needs to become 18+ because the 18+ rating AO is only used for games banned in stores, etc.




When I shared my story I was not trying to talk down to you or claim that my stories is everyone else's. I was simply explaining that my parents used to be totally anti-gaming and by getting them involved in the process I changed that. I wasn't saying you or anyone else was wrong for not doing that or that my situation was better than yours, I was simply throwing out what I did on the off chance it could help you. I'm not claiming to understand what you're life is like; there's no way I ever could. I never meant any disrespect towards you and generally feel for your situation, which is why I was just throwing out what I did.

However, I don't feel the ESRB is to blame for the mis-information about gaming. Like any other new form of media, like Rock & Roll, Movies, Comic-Books, and Heavy Metal, when it is new those who don't know it vilify it and make generalizations. And honestly, if we weren't gamers we would probably do the same thing, because it seems the majority of games we see now are gritty shooters in which people take headshots and hijack cars. A person who isn't a gamer isn't going to remember Mario, Zelda, of Phoenix Wright: They're going to think of the awful violence of Mortal Kombat or Grand Theft Auto and they are going to make decisions based on those images. And politicians will pander to that to get votes just like news organizations will air those images along with concern in order to get viewers.

I do believe violent video games are bad for small children. I do believe that more studies need to be done about video games' affect on people, not because I think they're going to turn into murderers but because things like stress and anxiety no doubt are triggered when playing games today. And I do think we need a ratings board to behave similarly to how it is now. You are right, there needs to be another rating; as I said, I was confused about M's age. And I do feel sorry for what you're going through. But once again, that's not really the ESRB's issue but rather you're parents.

As you said earlier, our generation will be much smarter when it comes to buying our kids games. And there will probably be some newfangled technology that we will worry and fear about and try to stop our kids from using. It's a repeating cycle.

---

More importantly, it's planted on the official site for anyone to see. Blood splatters everywhere. Murder weapon sticking out of corpse in plain sight. The scene is a mess. I have an urge to clean it.

The series isn't usually this open about its violent scenes. That one instance in Rise from the Ashes was secluded to a photo that appeared rather late into the case. The Investigations games tend to show the dead bodies out in the open a bit more, but they're also relatively mild, with only a little blood leaking out on the floor.

The most violent scenes of murder throughout the series have all either been hidden, implied, or taken out altogether. The rest is left up to imagination.

---

That just shows you how un-objective the ESRB is. If what you say is true, than they're obviously influenced by the current events and taboos of each year. That means that they don't rate the game's content objectively on its own. Like you said, a lot of games and movies SHOULD be re-rated; but neither the ESRB or MPAA care enough to do so.


Then they ARE being misleading. They should be rating the game OBJECTIVELY, not because of certain families. What exactly can they do? If the family doesn't want their kid playing games like RDR, then MAKE SURE HE DOESN'T PLAY IT.


Yes, if a game genuinely deserves to be rated M and the parents actually do decide to actively get involved, then yes the rating does work. But if a game SHOULDN'T be rated M or has misleading discriptors, than that kid just got screwed over from playing a perfectly suitable game.


I appreciate your concern, but I was talking about how my parents don't even WANT to get involve. Like I said, they don't care enough or understand to be even slightly interested in my hobby. But I hide the games anyways, so it makes no difference really.



They are partially. They don't give an accurate description for certain games, they give out wrong ratings, and they have no middle ground between T and M. But I do agree that it's mostly the stupid politicians to blame. It sickens me to think that these adults are trying to regulate the hobby of thousands of gamers, just because they want to fulfill their own personal agenda.



Anything violent or intense is bad for young children. But again, that has nothing to do with the movie or game; it's up to the parents. Video games have no affect on violent people. The people playing these games usually have pretty shitty lives, and suffer from mental issues. It's not video games we should be worrying about, but mental healthcare and other issues. But that's another topic.

How is it NOT the ESRBs fault? Sure, my parent are stubborn too, but if they're an unreliable organization with no 15+ rating, me and thousands of other kids can't play games that have no choice but to be rated M since there's no middle ground. The ESRB needs to change drastically, but you know what? It's not going to happen. What can we as gamers do? There's almost no information about them available, and online petitions don't do anything. It's sad that we have to deal with this, but there's nothing we can do.

I agree. 12+ for JFA and T&T were about right though (though I played the US versions of both games), especially for 2-2, 2-4 and 3-5.
On the other hand I felt Rise from the Ashes (1-5) was pretty dark in places for 7+ (PG) game. You dont really see anything though.

---

I wonder if the stuff they haven't showed us for the cases is the reason for the change in rating

So...uhmm...was there something worth mentioning at the SDCC?

---

Not really, no

---

Well, that's disappointing

---

Thats san deigo for you

Wow, this rating shook me up. I don't care whether a game is considered "mature" or not. (I'm 18, but I almost never play M rated games.) I care more about what's actually in there. I can handle more violence... but I detest sexual content. I'm really looking forward to playing it, but if the M rating scares me. It could have content in there I'm not comfortable with. If someone plays the Japanese version once it comes out, please explain what made it get a higher rating.

Im pretty sure there wont be alot of sexual content it will probally be rated M due to the violence from the cases

None of the descriptors say anything about sexual content, so you shouldn't see anything more than normal (if you can call Mia and Cammy's appearances normal).

dont forget april may

Aww, nothing new? I was thinking they would show a trailer for the game.

sadly they didn't very disappointed capcom

http://www.gonintendo.com/?mode=viewstory&id=207849

It's only gotten a PG-rating in Australia, same as the others.

Maybe USA reviewers don't like the bombing?

---

hmm true maybe it could be due to the whole boston bombing scare