-
queenisabella
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:56 pm
- Followed by:3 members
I would appreciate your help in critiquing and rating my essay. My issue is that I take too long on the Analyze Argument essay and don't have time to finish. I'm also unsure on the length of my essay - should I be writing more?
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a national news magazine:
"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 working because it is self regulated and the fines for violating the rating system are nominal. As a result an independent body should oversee the game industry and companies that knowingly violate the rating system should be prohibited from releasing a game for two years."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
Consumer adoption of multiple devices for consuming content has led to a proliferation of entertainment content across movies, gaming, etc. to meet consumer demand. As a result, entertainment content access is now easier to obtain than ever, particularly among teenagers and children. The industry has attempted to regulate underage consumption by instituting a rating system for movies and gaming, which is not one hundred percent full-proof for neither industry, but particularly the self-regulated gaming industry. While the argument above suggests an independent governor to oversee the gaming industry, the argument is logically flawed in its premises and assumptions.
The primary issue with the arguments' premises is that the nature of movies and electronic games are not similar, and thus, a similar rating system between the two industries may not be appropriate. Consumers watch movies in a lean-back, passive environment, while gamers need to be fully immersed and engaged into the screen and gameplay. Because of this, a simple rating system for the gaming industry may not be the best indicator of content.
The secondary issue is the author assumes that an independent party can indeed regulate the gaming industry's rating system. However, there are many instances, similar to the movie industry, where "independent" regulators are paid off to accommodate certain ratings releases. The author is assuming that this would not be an issue in the gaming industry. Further, the argument assumes that punishing a company that violates the rating system by prohibiting them from releasing a game in two years is truly going to stop the companies. Gaming companies such as Electronic Artists has many other streams of revenue that it can afford to wait more than two years for another release. For example, with the release of Halo 3, the number one selling video game of all time, the rating was inappropriately marked as suitable content for teenagers, which was one reason (among others) the game did so well. It not only appealed to gamers, but also satisfied the content requirements for the underage's parents. In fact, Halo 3 sold so well that Electronic Artists can afford to not release another game for another five years, and rely on up-selling Halo 3 paraphernalia, and gameplay books in the short term.
It's not to say that any independence regulation would be futile, as, of course, smaller, lesser-known gaming companies cannot afford to not release a game in two years. In this case, independent oversight and regulation can work to control the smaller companies in the gaming industry; it just will not be able to impact and shift the heavy-hitters of the gaming industry to comply with the rating regulations.
In conclusion, while regulation i
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a national news magazine:
"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 working because it is self regulated and the fines for violating the rating system are nominal. As a result an independent body should oversee the game industry and companies that knowingly violate the rating system should be prohibited from releasing a game for two years."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
Consumer adoption of multiple devices for consuming content has led to a proliferation of entertainment content across movies, gaming, etc. to meet consumer demand. As a result, entertainment content access is now easier to obtain than ever, particularly among teenagers and children. The industry has attempted to regulate underage consumption by instituting a rating system for movies and gaming, which is not one hundred percent full-proof for neither industry, but particularly the self-regulated gaming industry. While the argument above suggests an independent governor to oversee the gaming industry, the argument is logically flawed in its premises and assumptions.
The primary issue with the arguments' premises is that the nature of movies and electronic games are not similar, and thus, a similar rating system between the two industries may not be appropriate. Consumers watch movies in a lean-back, passive environment, while gamers need to be fully immersed and engaged into the screen and gameplay. Because of this, a simple rating system for the gaming industry may not be the best indicator of content.
The secondary issue is the author assumes that an independent party can indeed regulate the gaming industry's rating system. However, there are many instances, similar to the movie industry, where "independent" regulators are paid off to accommodate certain ratings releases. The author is assuming that this would not be an issue in the gaming industry. Further, the argument assumes that punishing a company that violates the rating system by prohibiting them from releasing a game in two years is truly going to stop the companies. Gaming companies such as Electronic Artists has many other streams of revenue that it can afford to wait more than two years for another release. For example, with the release of Halo 3, the number one selling video game of all time, the rating was inappropriately marked as suitable content for teenagers, which was one reason (among others) the game did so well. It not only appealed to gamers, but also satisfied the content requirements for the underage's parents. In fact, Halo 3 sold so well that Electronic Artists can afford to not release another game for another five years, and rely on up-selling Halo 3 paraphernalia, and gameplay books in the short term.
It's not to say that any independence regulation would be futile, as, of course, smaller, lesser-known gaming companies cannot afford to not release a game in two years. In this case, independent oversight and regulation can work to control the smaller companies in the gaming industry; it just will not be able to impact and shift the heavy-hitters of the gaming industry to comply with the rating regulations.
In conclusion, while regulation i
