"The rating system for electronic games is similar to the movie rating system in that it provides consumers with a quick reference so that they can determine if the subject matter and contents are appropriate. This electronic game rating system is not wor

The argument that an independent governing body to oversee the game industry and a prohibition of games for two years in case of violation of the rating system will virtually solve the problem of the game rating system proposes a solution in a reactive manner and overlooks the root cause of the problem. Although the criticism regarding the status quo of the game rating system does make sense, the proposed solution does not really address the mentioned flaws. The proposed solution might reduce the violation of rating regulations but will not solve the real problem.

The argument points out the flaws of the current system successfully. A self regulated system in which the game producers have the chance to interpret the rating criteria as they want does actually constitute a problem. It may be difficult to achieve objective ratings among the whole industry when every company does the rating on its own. However the proposed solution that an independent body should control the industry does still not solve the cause of the problem. In that case companies would still rate their games on their own with their own kind of interpretation of the criteria. Since the cause of the problem would still exist in the proposed solution, the argument is not successful addressing the problem.

In addition, the proposed penalty of forbidding a company to release a game for two years in case of violation of rating system is too harsh. A two-year ban on releasing a game is most probably so tough that the banned company would not survive the prohibition period and would go bankrupt. Since penalties are generally given to warn and not to harm a company, such kind of a harsh penalty would obviously overact its cause. That is why the solutions proposed by the argument seem to be reactive and not appropriate for the case.

With slight modifications on the proposed solution, the argument could achieve a sound rating system. Since the self regulated manner of the current system causes the problem, an independent body - as proposed in the argument - would address the problem. However, this independent body should not only control the industry but also rate every new game independently. Only this way it can be made sure that the rating criteria have only one interpretation and that the games are rated objectively. The centralization of game rating automatically eliminates the risk of violation of the rating system by game companies so that there is no need for harsh penalties.

In summary, the argument does determine important flaws in the system but fails in generating appropriate solutions to solve the problem. Although the proposed independent governing body is almost a good step in the right direction, the harsh penalty does not really serve the cause. With some little modifications to the proposed solution the problem of the game rating system can be solved.